908 Who S in The Room Access and Influence in Australian Politics

Sept
ember2018
Who’
sint
her
oom?
Ac
ces
sandi
nfl
uenc
einAus
tra
lia
npol
it
ics
Dani
ell
eWoodandKat
eGr
if
fi
ths
Who’s in the room? Access and influence in Australian politics
Grattan Institute Support Grattan Institute Report No. 2018-12, September 2018
Founding members Endowment Supporters This report was written by Danielle Wood, Kate Griffiths and Carmela
The Myer Foundation Chivers. Grattan interns Tim Asimakis, Matthew Bowes, Isabelle
National Australia Bank Hughes and Anne Yang provided research assistance and made
Susan McKinnon Foundation substantial contributions to the report.
We would like to thank the members of Grattan Institute’s Public Policy
Affiliate Partners Committee for their helpful comments. We also thank AJ Brown, Ken
Medibank Private Coghill, Belinda Edwards, Darren Halpin, Serena Lillywhite, Cameron
Susan McKinnon Foundation Murray, Joo-Cheong Tham and Anne Twomey for their suggestions,
and staff of the Australian Electoral Commission, NSW Electoral
Commission, NSW ICAC and other government and industry bodies for
Senior Affiliates
their technical input.
Google
Maddocks
The opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of Grattan Institute’s founding
PwC
members, affiliates, individual board members, committee members or
McKinsey & Company
reviewers. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
The Scanlon Foundation
Wesfarmers
Grattan Institute is an independent think-tank focused on Australian
public policy. Our work is independent, practical and rigorous. We aim
Westpac
to improve policy outcomes by engaging with both decision-makers and
the community.
Affiliates
Ashurst
For further information on the Institute’s programs, or to join our mailing
list, please go to: http://www.grattan.edu.au/.
Corrs
This report may be cited as: Wood, D., Griffiths, K., and Chivers, C. (2018). Who’s in
GE ANZ
the room? Access and influence in Australian politics. Grattan Institute.
Jemena
ISBN: 978-0-6483311-3-1
Urbis
All material published or otherwise created by Grattan Institute is licensed under a
Woodside
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
Grattan Institute 2018 2

Overview
Australians are rightly concerned about the role of special interests in then policy makers will usually follow. Major advertising campaigns are
politics. Even a healthy democracy like Australia’s can be vulnerable the preserve of well-resourced groups: unions, industry peak bodies
to policy capture. Well-resourced interests – such as big business, and GetUp! were major spenders in the past decade. Some groups
unions and not-for-profits – use money, resources and relationships to commission consultants or think tanks to lend credibility to their case.
influence policy to serve their interests, at times at the expense of the The media often publish their findings uncritically or fail to ask: ‘who
public interest. Even if they are only sometimes successful, it’s not the paid for this research?’
‘fair go’ Australians expect.
Who’s in the room – and who’s in the news – matters for policy
Access to decision makers is vital for anyone seeking to influence outcomes. Powerful groups have triumphed over the public interest in
policy. But some groups get more access than others. Businesses with some recent debates, from pokies reforms to pharmaceutical prices, to
the most at stake in government decisions lobby harder and get more toll roads and superannuation governance.
meetings with senior ministers. Some industries – such as gambling
and property construction – are hugely over-represented compared to This report shows how to strengthen checks and balances on policy
their contribution to the economy. influence. Publishing ministerial diaries and lists of lobbyists with
passes to Parliament House could encourage politicians to seek more
Money and relationships can boost access: time with ministers and diverse input. More timely and comprehensive data would improve
their shadows is explicitly ‘for sale’ at fundraising dinners, and major visibility of the major donors to political parties. Accountability should
donors are more likely to get a meeting with a senior minister. And be strengthened through clear standards for MPs’ conduct, enforced by
more than one-quarter of politicians go on to post-politics jobs for an independent body. A cap on political advertising expenditure would
special interests, where their relationships can help open doors. reduce the donations ‘arms race’ between parties and their reliance
The major political parties rely on a handful of big donors: just 5 per on major donors. These reforms won’t cure every ill, but they are likely
cent of donors contributed more than half of the big parties’ declared to help. They would improve the incentives to act in the public interest
donations at the last election. Donations build relationships and a and have done no obvious harm in jurisdictions where they have been
sense of reciprocity. And the fact that industries in the cross-hairs of implemented.
policy debate sometimes donate generously and then withdraw once
Australians want to drain the billabong: they don’t like the current
the debate has moved on suggests they believe, perhaps rightly, that
system and they don’t trust it. This report proposes some simple
money matters.
changes that would improve the quality of policy debate and boost the
Special interests also seek influence through the public debate. The public’s confidence that policy is being made for all Australians – not
idea is simple: if you can capture the ‘hearts and minds’ of the public just those in the room.

Recommendations
Australian political institutions are generally robust, but there is room for ∙ Independently administer codes of conduct, to build public
improvement. This report proposes eight key reforms. confidence that people are complying with them. Appoint a
separate ethics adviser to encourage current and former politicians
Improve transparency in policy making
to seek advice when they are in doubt.
∙ Publish ministerial diaries to enable public scrutiny of who
ministers are meeting – and not meeting – and encourage them ∙ Establish a federal integrity or anti-corruption body to investigate
to seek out a wider range of views. potential misconduct or corruption, publish findings, and refer
any corrupt activity to the Commonwealth Director of Public
∙ Link the lobbyists register to ‘orange passes’ to identify Prosecutions.
commercial and in-house lobbyists with privileged behind-the-
scenes access to Parliament House, and ensure they comply with Level the playing field
the lobbying code of conduct.
∙ Cap political advertising expenditure by political parties and
∙ Improve the visibility of political donations by lowering the
third parties during election campaigns to reduce the imbalance
donations disclosure threshold to $5,000, requiring political parties
between groups with different means to broadcast political views,
to aggregate multiple donations from the same donor and requiring
and limit the reliance of major political parties on individual donors.
more timely release of donations data.
Strengthen accountability of policy makers ∙ Boost countervailing voices through more inclusive policy review
processes and advocacy for under-represented groups to give
∙ Clarify conflicts of interest for all parliamentarians – particularly politicians and public officials better information with which to
around hospitality, gifts and secondary employment – and set adjudicate the public interest.
a standard for the public, media and parliament to hold elected
officials to. These recommendations are detailed in Chapter 5.

Table of contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 The access problem in Australian politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 The money problem in Australian politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 Winning hearts and minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 Proposals for reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A Case studies of special interest influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B Associated entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture
This report examines the influence of special interests on policy making some cases they are getting weaker. That’s why many democracies
in Australia. It demonstrates how individuals and organisations with have direct checks on the influence of special interest groups –
the most to gain or lose from policy changes push their agenda. And particularly around political donations and access.
it highlights the cost to other Australians when the voices of special
interest groups are given too much weight in policy debates. 1.1.1 The policy-making process has a number of checks
This chapter shows why – even in a healthy democracy like Australia’s against undue influence
– special interests can sometimes successfully hijack the policy-making Policy making is rarely linear or neat – politicians and other decision-
process. Indeed, many of the ‘risk factors’ for policy capture – financial makers draw information, analysis and views from a range of sources:
dependence, cosy relationships and lack of transparency in dealings
between special interests and parliamentarians – are present in our ∙ Individuals represent their interests by writing to or talking with
system. a local member or minister, signing a petition, joining a protest,
expressing a view in the media, or donating to or volunteering for a
Australians are concerned about special interest control over policy,
political party or advocacy group.
and rightly so – this chapter underscores the economic and social costs
of a political system that sometimes favours the few over the many. ∙ Special interests – such as unions, business, and not-for profit
groups with an advocacy role – advance their views either privately
1.1 Democratic institutions help protect against policy capture through meetings with decision-makers or publicly through media
but aren’t always a perfect defence and advertising.2
In the ideal democracy, the mechanisms of government are devised ∙ The public service provides ministers with ‘frank and fearless’
so that the clash of contending opinions and interests is converted into analysis and advice, including on the public interest. Other public
policies that serve the common good.1 service institutions such as the Parliamentary Library and the
Democracy is at its heart a contest of ideas. The policy-making process Parliamentary Budget Office also assist all parliamentarians in
translates those ideas into actions: laws, regulations, taxes and analysing policy.
spending. ∙ Experts outside the public service – including professionals,
In democracies like Australia, a number of safeguards, not least academics and think tanks – volunteer or are asked for their policy
elections themselves, aim to promote policy made in the public interest, analysis and advice.
not for special interests. But these safeguards are not perfect, and in
2. Governments also lobby other governments, for example local councils or foreign
1. Lindsey and Teles (2017, p. 18). governments might lobby the federal government.

Policy makers are expected to weigh these sources of information and Party pre-selection processes are another check on the conduct and
make decisions in the public interest.3 At the highest level, the public policy views of parliamentarians, at least for the major parties. Although
interest can be defined as for “the benefit of society, the public or the pre-selection processes are a long way from perfectly democratic,7 they
community as a whole”.4 But reasonable minds can differ about what generally require politicians and would-be politicians to periodically
policies are in the ‘public interest’. Before policies can be implemented, convince party members in their electorates that they are the best
individual politicians usually need to convince their party, and then the person to represent the party.
parliament, about the best course of action.5 In practice, policy often
compromises between competing views of the public interest.6 1.1.2 These safeguards are not perfect and in some cases are
becoming weaker
As part of this process, elected representatives and many others spend
considerable time and effort thinking about, analysing and debating the Democracy isn’t a perfect safeguard of the public interest. Voting is
public interest. Skilled and well-motivated politicians are a vital part of ultimately a blunt check on bad policy and bad behaviour.
good policy-making.
Voters often lack information. Governments preside over a vast range
But decision-makers at times also respond to other motivations. of policies and programs. But many people cast their vote on just a few
Self-interest, the interests of their political parties, and the concerns highly visible policy issues.8
of special interests can also influence policy choices.
Some of the other checks on behaviour and decision-making are
Elections help keep these other influences in check. They signal becoming weaker.
the public’s view of how their interests are best served, and provide
The media is not always an effective ‘watchdog’. Investigative
an incentive for governments not to veer too far from that path.
journalism is costly, and with falling advertising revenues, many media
Governments that pursue policies that leave the majority of the
outlets cannot fund much of it.9 Australia’s media is more concentrated
electorate substantially worse off are unlikely to survive. The media
than almost anywhere else in the world,10 which limits the avenues
has an important role in informing voters by shining a light on policy
for alternative views. And Australia’s tough defamation laws make
debates and political processes.
our media very cautious about calling out undue influence, let alone
3. Under the Constitution, the Parliament makes laws for “the peace, order, and good corruption.11 All this weakens media oversight of policy – particularly
government of the Commonwealth” (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act more technical policy issues – and abuses of power.
(1900, s. 51). Public office bearers are entrusted to only exercise their powers
“for, and on behalf of, the people” (Lusty (2014)). Acting in the ‘public interest’ is 7. Johns (2000); and Duffy (2016).
fundamental to ‘good government’, see Wheeler (2006). 8. Or on party loyalties, or personalities. Many argue that voters pass judgement on
4. See Wheeler (ibid.) for a more detailed discussion of ‘the public interest’. the overall performance of politicians, not their policies, e.g. Lenz (2012).
5. There are few policy areas where individual ministers have individual discretion 9. Beecher (2013).
(Section 1.3). 10. Dwyer and Muller (2016).
6. For example, the GST, pension reform, company tax cuts, and the National Energy 11. Some argue Australia’s defamation framework leads journalists to self-censor
Guarantee involved compromises within political parties, between parties, and with (S. Keane (2017)). Comparative analysis of news content in Australia and the US
crossbenchers. supports this (Dent and Kenyon (2004)).

There are concerns that the public service is losing policy capability12 others.17 The most extreme version of this is graft – where an interest
and is being sidelined as a source of policy advice.13 The rise of group pays for a vote or regulatory decision. This kind of ‘black letter’
ministerial office staff and the politicisation of the public service make corruption is illegal in Australia18 and probably rare (Chapter 3).
it harder for public servants to provide robust, trusted policy advice.14
But there are many legal ways that special interests can create a
Pre-selection processes – to the extent they are influenced by party favourable political environment. These include donations, lobbying,
members – are becoming a less useful check on candidates’ conduct hiring former ministers and staffers who have existing relationships with
and mainstream appeal because major party membership is falling and decision-makers, and seeking to convince the public that their interests
becoming less representative of the wider population.15 A shrinking align with the public interest.
membership base also makes it easier for a narrow set of interests
within a party to stack or control branches and pre-selections.16 These tools are more readily available to the well-resourced and
highly motivated. They can increase the risk that policy makers make
decisions based on an unbalanced view of an issue and – knowingly
1.2 How special interests convert economic power into political or unknowingly – give undue weight to special interests over the public
power interest. This ‘grey area’ of undue influence is the focus of this report.
Special interests are individuals or organisations with much to gain It may not be the norm, but undue influence is real and can be costly.
or lose from a particular change in government policy. All of us have In a recent public survey, 56 per cent of respondents said they had
an interest in particular policy debates, but this report is concerned ‘personally witnessed’ public officials making decisions that favoured
with people and groups that try to influence policy outcomes in their a business or individual who gave them political donations or support,
favour, when it is at the expense of the public interest. Special interests or at least ‘suspected’ that was happening. And the number was
invariably claim that the outcomes they support are in the public even higher among those who had worked in federal government
interest. But what is good for General Motors is not always good for (Figure 1.1).
the country.
Well-resourced special interest groups – such as unions and big 1.2.1 Rent-seeking can pay off for special interests
businesses – will sometimes exert considerable effort and resources Organised attempts to influence policy can create windfall gains for
to push for policies that benefit themselves, often at the expense of some, at the expense of others. Economists call this ‘rent-seeking’:
when businesses try to influence government decisions to boost their
12. Moran (2017).
13. Mitchell (2015); and Van Onselen (2014). 17. Lindsey and Teles (2017). ‘Resources’ can include money, staff, members,
14. Banks (2013a). These issues are not the focus of this report, but will be volunteers, information and expertise.
considered in future work. 18. Bribing a public official, and receiving a bribe or ‘corrupting benefit’, are illegal
15. D. Wood et al. (2018); and Reece (2015a). under Australian law, but require proof of a dishonest or improper motive, Criminal
16. Duffy (2016). Code Act 1995 (Cth).

wealth but not wealth overall.19 This report defines rent-seeking more Figure 1.1: Most people say they have seen, or suspect, public officials
broadly, to include the efforts of other groups – such as unions and favour those that back them
not-for-profits – when they seek government interventions that further How many times have you ‘personally witnessed or suspected’ a government
official or politician making a decision in favour of a business or individual who
their interests at the expense of the public interest.
gave them political donations or support? Per cent of responses
Lobbying does not always pay off for individual firms.20 But one US 100%
Don’t
study found economic elites or organised interests tended to prevail know
when their opinion was on one side of a debate and public opinion 80%
on the other.21 Even occasional windfall gains for rent-seekers are a Never
concern if they come at the expense of the public interest.
Once
60% or
Rent-seeking is most likely to succeed when the benefits from a policy 20%
18% twice
outcome are concentrated but the costs are diffuse. The few that stand 19%
to gain a lot tend to be more motivated to persuade decision-makers 40%
A few
than the many that each stand to lose a little, even if the collective 25% 29%
times
losses are substantial.22 21%
20%
Rent-seeking is also more likely to be successful where the policy Many
16% 18% 18%
area is technical, niche or complex.23 These policy areas are more times
0%
difficult for citizens, journalists and outsider groups to engage with, and
All respondents Respondents who Respondents who had
policy makers themselves are more reliant on the expertise of special had worked in govt worked in federal govt
Notes: This was a telephone poll of 2,218 adults in Australia conducted by Griffith
19. Tullock et al. (2002). University and Transparency International Australia in May-June 2018.
20. “Individual lobbyists . . . try to spin their issues, but opponents fight back, ensuring
Source: Transparency International Australia (2018).
that for most issues most of the time, a stable equilibrium continues” (Baumgartner
et al. (2009)). Studies show mixed results on whether lobbying spend delivers
bang for buck: e.g. Cao et al. (2018), Chen et al. (2015), Hadani and Schuler
(2013), Hill et al. (2013) and Lux et al. (2011).
21. Gilens and Page (2014).
22. Olson (1965).
23. Few interest groups engage with these issues – a US study found 50 per cent
of policy issues attracted only 3 per cent of lobbying activity, while 5 per cent of
issues attracted more than 45 per cent of lobbying activity (Baumgartner and
Leech (2001)). Political activity directed at specific issues tends to be more
successful than general political activity (Burstein and Linton (2002) and Cao et
al. (2018)). And lobbying aimed at maintaining the status quo is also more likely to
be successful (Baumgartner et al. (2009)).

interests in formulating policy. “The power of [special] interests varies in groups in 2015-16 range from $400 million to $700 million30 – and
direct proportion to the visibility of the issue in question.”24 those estimates do not include in-house or commercial lobbying staff
employed by businesses, unions and not-for profits.
Industries that are heavily regulated by government, such as property
development, transport, and mining, are particularly prone to rent- While lobbying spend gives a sense of the size of the industry, it
seeking because complex regulations tend both to affect many areas cannot capture the costs to the public of poor policy encouraged by
of their business and are difficult for outsiders to understand.25 lobbying. Estimating this is inherently challenging,31 but some US and
Australian studies suggest the costs to citizens could be substantial.32
1.2.2 Economic and social costs of rent-seeking can be high International studies suggest corruption and perceived corruption tend
to reduce economic growth.33
The economic costs of rent-seeking can be substantial. It can reduce
economic activity – the ‘size of the pie’ – if firms devote their efforts to Lobbying can also cause governments to overlook important policy
influencing policy rather than developing better and more innovative issues. A US study found little overlap between the issues that
products and services.26 Even the perception that government is in lobbyists work on and the issues the broader public considers most
bed with particular interests can reduce entrepreneurial activity if important.34 Policy makers who spend more time talking to lobbyists
new entrants believe that incumbents do not have to compete on their than the general public may end up with a distorted sense of policy
merits.27 priorities.
The simplest measure of the cost of rent-seeking is the amount Rent-seeking is also socially detrimental. Rent-seeking and corruption
spent on it. In the US, special interests spent a total of US$3.4 billion worsen inequality by increasing the share of the pie going to those
on lobbying activities in 2017.28 Equivalent data is not collected already well-off.35 When a political system favours ‘insiders’ or the
in Australia, but we know that private interests donated more than powerful, the public’s trust in government is weakened.36 And if the
$40 million to political parties at the last federal election.29 Estimates same interests seem to keep winning, the legitimacy of government
of the expenditure of major Australian peak bodies and advocacy is undermined and it becomes harder to promote policy changes that
are unpopular but in the public interest.37
24. Teles (2013).
25. Cao et al. (2018); Hadani and Schuler (2013); Bonardi et al. (2006); and
Transparency International Australia (2017). 30. Bragg (2017); and West (2017a).
26. Tullock et al. (2002); Lindsey and Teles (2017); Zingales (2017); Brou and Ruta 31. Del Rosal (2011).
(2013); and Baumol (1996). 32. e.g. Bessen (2016), Lindsey and Teles (2017) and Murray and Frijters (2017,
27. K. M. Murphy et al. (1993). And it may encourage people to choose careers pp. 153–155).
specialising in rent-seeking work instead of entrepreneurial activity (K. M. Murphy 33. Mauro (1995) found indices of perceived corruption have a negative relationship
et al. (1991)). with economic growth. Also Bardhan et al. (1997) reviews the evidence.
28. Lobbying spending grew rapidly through the 2000s but has plateaued since the 34. Baumgartner et al. (2009); and Kimball et al. (2012).
global financial crisis (Center for Responsive Politics (2018)). 35. Tullock et al. (2002); Lindsey and Teles (2017) reviews the US evidence.
29. Counted over the two financial years containing the 2016 federal election 36. Banks (2013b); Tham (2010); and Lessig (2013).
campaign (Chapter 3). 37. Dur and Bievre (2007).

1.3 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture

‘Policy capture’ occurs when special interests succeed in swaying Table 1.1: Australia is vulnerable to policy capture
policy in their favour at the expense of the public interest.38 Risk factor Risk in Australia?
Incentive Government There are many sectors where
Australia has many of the risk factors that make policy capture
policy determines government decisions have a big
more likely:39 special interests have the resources and incentives to ‘winners’ impact on returns.
influence policy outcomes; current rules and norms create additional Existing inequality Some sectors are highly concentrated.
opportunities to influence; and existing checks and balances on
Ability Availability of Many special interests are well-
influence are weak in some areas (Table 1.1). Several parliamentary
resources resourced (such as unions and large
committees and inquiries have recognised the need to address businesses).
weaknesses in the system.40 Reliance Political parties are heavily reliant on
major donors.
Other democracies are similarly vulnerable, but many make access Repeated Some interests have disproportionate
and influence more transparent, which enables voters to better hold interactions / access to policy makers; some donate
government to account.41 relationships regularly.
Privileged access to Parliament
House facilitates casual interactions
Incentive to influence policy between politicians and influence-
Half the Australian economy is heavily dependent on government seekers.
Lax ‘revolving door’ rules permit
policy.42 This includes the property, mining, financial services,
‘cosiness’ between politicians and
transport, energy and telecommunications sectors. In these sectors influence-seekers.
government can create individual winners (e.g. by granting mining
Opportunity Opacity of Limited transparency and poor
licenses, awarding a contract or rezoning land) and increase – or
decision making accountability mechanisms.
Technical In some policy areas, government
38. OECD (2017, p. 9). complexity (and particularly opposition parties)
39. Ibid. rely on interest groups to test policies.
40. For example, a 2017 Senate Select Committee recommended “the Common- Unchecked Parties, parliament and media provide
wealth Government prioritises strengthening the national integrity framework” discretion some checks. But these checks are
(Senate Select Committee (2017)). Researchers have identified specific less effective where losers are diffuse.
weaknesses in Australia’s federal integrity system, including: a lack of coordinated
oversight of high-risk misconduct; no independent supervision for large areas Notes: Red means the risk factor is present in Australia, orange means it is sometimes
of corruption risk (such as procurement); and limited public accessibility and present, yellow means it is not present.
whistle-blower support (Brown et al. (2018)). Source: Grattan Institute, adapted from OECD (2017).
41. OECD (2017); OECD (2014); and OECD (2016).
42. IBISWorld ‘heavy regulation and government policy’ category.

destroy – profitability (e.g. by providing bank guarantees or changing Businesses in highly regulated industries account for the lion’s share
regulatory settings). of external meetings with senior politicians on both sides of politics.
And there are plenty of opportunities for informal interactions as well,
Some of these sectors are concentrated,43 and some are highly
ranging from corridor catch-ups in Parliament House to corporate boxes
profitable natural monopolies44 in which incumbents have a lot to lose
at the AFL Grand Final (Chapter 2).
from new entry, competitive challenge or tighter regulation.
In Australia, sectors with higher barriers to entry are a little more Many special interests also lobby through former ministers, advisers
profitable than those with lower barriers.45 These sectors earn more and senior bureaucrats using their existing relationships and know-how.
than $16 billion in ‘super-normal’ profits.46 These super-normal profits Policy makers may be particularly vulnerable to policy capture when
are not necessarily rents created by government – they often result approached by former colleagues and friends (Chapter 2).
from natural or government-created barriers to entry. But given these
super-normal profits exist, incumbents may be strongly motivated to Many special interests have the financial resources to make the most of
protect them through lobbying rather than innovation, at the expense of these various influence channels.
consumers and taxpayers.
Ability to influence policy Opportunity to influence policy
Regular interactions and stable networks make it easier to exert undue Special interests have more opportunity to bend policy to their
influence. Relationships between government and some special advantage in systems where checks and balances on influence are
interests in Australia are often ‘cosy’. weak. Australia has a range of checks on policy decisions – including
party pre-selections, public service advice, independent media and of
Many major political donors donate regularly, and political parties are course elections. But these checks are nor perfect and in some cases
highly reliant on a small number of donors for most of their funding they are weakening (Section 1.1).
(Chapter 3).
43. e.g. Banking, insurance and mobile telecommunications, Minifie (2017).
44. e.g. Electricity distribution and transmission, rail freight transport, and wired 1.4 Australians are concerned about the power of special
telecommunications, Minifie (ibid.). interests
45. About 40 per cent of all above-normal profits are earned behind barriers to entry,
even though those sectors account for less than 30 per cent of total equity (Minifie Surveys show that since the early 2000s, perceptions that ‘people in
(ibid.)). government look after themselves’ and that ‘government is run for a few
46. ‘Super-normal’ profits are those earned above the cost of equity. Profits and
big interests’ have risen significantly (Figure 1.2).47
super-normal profits were calculated based on sector average returns (after
tax) calculated from 2010-11 to 2015-16, weighted by firm equity, excluding
goodwill. Sectors with high barriers to entry and super-normal profits include
banking, insurance, supermarkets, gambling, electricity networks, transport and
telecommunications (Minifie (ibid.)). 47. Cameron and McAllister (2016).

In 2018, 85 per cent of Australians surveyed thought at least ‘some’ Australia needs a broader suite of reforms to restrict undue influence,
federal MPs were corrupt (on par with perceptions of state MPs and including foreign influence.54
worse than perceptions of local officials).48
Perceptions of undue influence are a problem for government
Australia has also slipped in Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index in recent years.49 The index scores countries on Even if policy makers do meet with a wide variety of interests and
how corrupt their public sectors are seen to be, as measured by appropriately balance their views, the perception that some interests
surveys of business people, analysts and other experts. While Australia might be distorting policy-making is still a problem for government.
is still among the best-ranked countries in the world, it is the only
highly-ranked country to have experienced a significant decline in the The perception of undue influence undermines trust in government
index, slipping 8 points between 2012 and 2017 (Figure 1.3). and makes policy making harder: “Undue influence – whether real or
perceived – erodes the social contract underpinning democracies, and
In recent months the federal government has voiced concerns about hence the system’s credibility and legitimacy”.55
foreign interference in our political system, including the influence
of foreign donors.50 There are good reasons for concern: the 2016 Falling trust and rising voter disillusionment appear to be behind the
US election showed how corrosive foreign influence can be, and the growing support for minor parties in Australia. More votes for minor
Australian intelligence community has warned that similar activities parties makes majority government less likely. It’s not necessarily
could happen here.51 The Australian Parliament passed two bills in a bad thing for policy when a government has to negotiate with
June 2018 that introduce new national security offences and require crossbenchers, but it does make legislating policy change more
registration of foreign efforts to influence.52 But a third bill attempting to complex.56 Lower trust also makes it harder for government to enact
ban foreign donations is yet to pass because of difficulties in identifying ‘difficult but necessary’ reforms.57
banned donations and fears of unintended consequences.53
1.5 Finding the right balance
48. This was a telephone poll of 2,218 Australians as part of the Global Corruption
The question of what to do about undue influence is tricky. Shutting
Barometer, conducted by Griffith University and Transparency International
Australia in May-June 2018 (Transparency International Australia (2018)). special interests out of the policy process is not the answer. Interests
49. Ibid. should be able to advocate for themselves and make representations
50. The then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, cited ‘disturbing reports about Chinese to government.58 Different groups advancing their views is part of a
influence’ when he announced new legislation in December 2017 to try to limit healthy democratic process.
foreign interference (Belot (2018)).
51. Baxendale (2018); and Belot (2017a).
52. National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) 54. Ibid.
Bill 2018 (Cth); and Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018 (Cth). 55. OECD (2017, p. 3).
53. The third bill is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and 56. D. Wood et al. (2018).
Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 which attempted to ban foreign donations, but faced 57. Hetherington and Husser (2012).
significant challenges canvassed by Twomey (2018). 58. Tham (2010); and OECD (2017).

Figure 1.2: Public concern about special interests has risen Figure 1.3: Experts say Australia is falling behind on international
Survey respondents who agree with selected statements measures of corruption
100% Corruption Perceptions Index rank, 2012-2017, top 15 countries in 2017
0.9 1- New Zealand
1.9 2- Denmark
People in government look after themselves 2.9 3- Finland
80% 3.9 4- Norway
4.9 5- Switzerland
5.9 6- Singapore
6.9 7- Sweden
60%
7.9 8- Canada
8.9 9- Luxembourg
Australia
9.9 fell 10- Netherlands
40% out of10.9
the
11- UK
top ten
11.9after
12- Germany
Government is run for a few big interests losing 8
12.9
13- Australia
points
13.9in the 14- Hong Kong
20% index14.9
15.9
15- Iceland
16.9
17.9
0% 18.9
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 19.9
Source: Cameron and McAllister (2016). 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Notes: The index scores countries on how corrupt their public sectors are seen to be
according to surveys of business people, analysts and other experts. Australia is the
only top ten-ranked country in 2012 to have had a statistically significant decline in the
index since 2012 (from a score of 85 and a rank of 8th in 2012, to a score of 77 and a
rank of 13th in 2017).
Source: Transparency International (2018).

But policy making can be distorted if some interests are consistently

heard while others are not – whether because they invest more in
lobbying, donations or public campaigns or because they are able to
leverage political connections.
The remainder of this report tracks the ‘tools of influence’: political

donations, lobbying, the ‘revolving door’ of politicians and staff into
lobbying roles, and campaigns to capture the ‘hearts and minds’ of the
public. Current checks and balances on special interest influence do
not seem to be sufficient, given the evidence of disproportionate access
and influence, and the many examples of special interest groups
capturing the policy agenda. Of course good policy often prevails, but
even some instances of policy capture are cause for concern.
The report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 shows how some special interests invest much more in

lobbying and gain substantially more access to policy makers. It shows
how access often translates into policy influence.
Chapter 3 examines the role of political donations in building

relationships with parties and policy makers, enabling access, and
fostering a sense of reliance and reciprocity.
Chapter 4 looks at public campaigns on policy and how misinformation,

and imbalance in coverage, can skew policy away from the public
interest.
Chapter 5 recommends reforms to make policy making more

transparent, tighten existing checks and balances on policy makers,
and give less-powerful voices more opportunity to contribute to policy
debates.

2 The access problem in Australian politics
Access to senior policy makers is crucial to influence. That’s why have a right to know more about who gets meetings with senior
unions, businesses and community groups spend time pressing the politicians, and the system needs better checks on former politicians
flesh with parliamentarians and advisers. selling their relationships.
Lobbying plays an important role in policy development: it may help

throw up new ideas and reduce the risk of uninformed or damaging
decisions by those in office.59 2.1 Who’s in the room?
Access matters in politics. The policy process is becoming more open
But some individuals and groups get more access than others.
to outside influence (Box 1), with many different interests seeking time
Business interests get many more meetings with senior ministers than
with politicians and their staff. At least 500 commercial lobbyists are
consumer and community groups – at least in the states where we can
paid to lobby federal politicians on behalf of a client.60 Another 1,755
see ministerial diaries.
people hold sponsored security passes for federal Parliament House.61
Highly regulated industries, where government decisions can have a These ‘orange passes’ permit them to walk unescorted through the
big impact on the bottom line, use commercial lobbyists more, and corridors of power.62
gain a disproportionate share of meetings with senior ministers. It
is not surprising that these businesses are knocking on the doors of Private companies, many of them businesses in highly regulated
government. The worry is that such a heavy skew means policy makers industries, make up almost 80 per cent of the clients of commercial
are not getting a balanced view of the issues. lobbyists on the federal register (Figure 2.1).
Some interests also seek to boost their influence by hiring former
ministers and staffers with existing relationships, or by building
relationships in more relaxed settings such as at the football or on an
overseas trip.
60. Australian Government Lobbyists Register, as at August 2018 (PM&C (2018a)).
Access seems to pay off in terms of influence: there are plenty of 61. As at 31 July 2018 (Department of Parliamentary Services response to a Grattan
Institute request for information). The identity of pass-holders is not on the public
examples of interest groups successfully lobbying for policy changes
record (DPS (2017)).
to be put on – or taken off – the table, which look contrary to the public 62. This makes holding multiple meetings with MPs and advisers far more convenient
interest. and also increases the chance of spontaneous encounters – for example at the
cafes inside the House that are not accessible to the general public. Orange
Existing checks and balances on lobbying activities in Australia are passes require the holder to be sponsored by someone in the Parliament who
weak and poorly enforced. Given the importance of access, voters has known the passholder for 12 months or longer, or provide a letter from their
organisation vouching for their good character and their need for ‘significant and
59. ICAC (2010); and Australian Government (2018a). regular business access’ (Lambie (2017a)).

Figure 2.1: Commercial lobbyists typically represent companies in highly

Box 1: A more open policy process creates opportunities and regulated industries
risks Share of clients on the federal lobby register in 2018
Sources of political influence have become more diverse in recent High reg. industry
decades as the membership of the major parties has diminished.
Policy development and agenda-setting no longer occur primarily Low reg. industry
in party forums.a A range of groups put issues on the agenda, Business interests
including peak bodies, think tanks and grass-roots organisations. Peak body
Interest groups and issue movements, which organise and Prof. services
campaign outside party arenas, have become “more important
vehicles for political participation and democratic accountability”.b CCC Consumer, community or cause
And lobbying is one of their key political tools.c This creates a
more open contest of ideas, but it also increases the risk of undue Union Employee interests
influence in areas where the major political parties don’t have
Mixed
strong ideological or policy grounding. Mixed and individual interests
Some interest groups go further and establish a political party. Individual
‘Interest-based’ parties abound in Australia: the Animal Justice
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Party, Mature Australia, and Marriage Equality all fielded Senate
Note: ‘Mixed’ interests are organisations that have both business and non-profit
candidates in the 2016 election. The ALP, of course, was interests, such as universities, hospitals, research institutes and local councils.
established as the party of the union movement, and affiliated Source: Grattan analysis of clients on the Australian Government Lobbyists Register
unions still retain substantial power over party conferences (which (PM&C (2018a)) as at April 2018 (total clients = 1848).
set policy) and pre-selections (which decide who stands for office).
Establishing a party is an open way to seek influence. But, as

many groups find out, convincing the public of your case can
be harder (and more expensive) than trying to influence an
incumbent.
a. Marsh (1999); and Ward (2009).
b. Tham (2010); Ward (2009); and Marsh (1999).
c. Tham (2010, p. 219).

But commercial lobbyists are only a fraction of the access story. Most Figure 2.2: Queensland and NSW ministers meet most with highly
major corporates, unions and not-for-profits employ government regulated industries
relations or executive staff whose job is to manage relationships with Per cent of meetings with senior ministers (external meetings only)
policy makers. Yet their access is almost entirely invisible. 50%
Public business QLD
At the federal level, there is no information on who gets access to policy (1-7%) NSW
40%
makers, how much lobbying takes place, or the policy issues involved.63
Private interests Other
But in two states – New South Wales and Queensland – information
(62-63%) (30-37%)
regarding ministers’ meetings, and the purpose of those meetings, is 30%
publicly available.64 And the data from these states show that some
types of interests get a lot more access to senior ministers than others
(Box 2 on page 21). 20%
2.1.1 Groups with the most to gain get more access 10%
In NSW and Queensland, most external meetings held by senior
ministers were with private businesses or industry peak bodies 0%
(62 per cent in NSW and 63 per cent in Queensland). Highly High reg. Low reg. Industry Prof. Consumer, Union Mixed
regulated businesses got the most access, particularly in Queensland industry industry peak services Community interests
body or Cause
(Figure 2.2).65
Notes: ‘Mixed interests’ are organisations that have both business and non-profit
interests, such as universities, hospitals and schools. The data covers 1246 external
The number of meetings with unions was surprisingly low in
meetings. It excludes external meetings with individuals, where the individual has no
Queensland, given it has an ALP government. But unions have known connections to any of the industries or interests listed.
other channels to influence the ALP, including party conferences Sources: Grattan analysis of Queensland ministerial diaries (Premier, Deputy
Premier and Treasurer), January 2017 to March 2018, and NSW ministerial diaries
63. PM&C (2018a). (Premier, Deputy Premier and Treasurer), July 2016 to September 2017 (Queensland
64. Queensland has been publishing ministerial diaries since 2013, NSW since 2014, Government (2018) and NSW Government (2018)).
and in January 2018 the ACT also began publishing ministerial diaries.
65. Over a 15-month period, 800 external meetings were recorded for Queensland’s
Premier, Deputy Premier and Treasurer. Over a slightly different 15-month period,
500 external meetings were recorded for NSW’s Premier, Deputy Premier and
Treasurer. Meetings with local government officials were not included, because
internal discussions could not be distinguished from lobbying efforts. The
Queensland ministerial diaries include a broader range of meetings, such as
events and site visits. The period in NSW is from July 2016 to September 2017.
The period in Queensland is from January 2017 to March 2018, which includes a
state election.

and sometimes personal relationships. The ministerial diaries in Figure 2.3: Highly regulated industries lobby hardest
Queensland and NSW do not record these activities, and the NSW Share of external political donations, contacts and meetings in Queensland
diaries do not record other important forums for influence such as 80%
official events, town hall meetings and community functions. Donations Commercial Meetings with
($7.5m in total) lobbying contacts senior ministers
In Queensland, as well as getting more direct meetings with senior (700 in total) (800 in total)
60%
ministers, highly regulated businesses also gave more political
donations and made more contacts through commercial lobbying firms
than other groups (Figure 2.3).
40%
Businesses in highly regulated industries, such as transport, mining,
energy, and property construction, all actively seek to influence
politicians, although the channels of influence vary by industry. 20%
Property developers donate more, whereas mining and energy
companies use commercial lobbyists more. The gambling industry
punches above its weight on donations, commercial lobbying contacts 0%
and meetings with senior ministers (Figure 2.4). High reg. Low reg. Peak Prof. Consumer,
CCC Union Mixed
body services Community
Politicians are not the only target in the influence game. Influencing or Cause
senior public servants can also matter. But again, much of this lobbying Notes: Individuals and unknown entities excluded (individuals represented 13 per cent
of major donations and unknown entities less than 1 per cent). All donations declared
takes place out of public view. Public servants don’t publish their
to April 2018. Lobbying contacts includes only clients that made at least five contacts.
diaries and we know little about who they consult with. In a recent Analysis was only conducted for Queensland, where data on commercial lobbying
survey, Australian federal and state public servants reported more contacts is available.
frequent interactions – particularly in relation to ‘policy analysis or Sources: ECQ (2018), QIC (2018) and Queensland Government (2018).
development’ – with ‘representatives from industry, professional or
community organisations’ than with ‘representatives from client or
consumer groups’ or ‘members of the general public’.66
Highly motivated and well-resourced interests have greater capacity to

organise and actively seek access to politicians and public servants.
Researchers Bert Fraussen and Darren Halpin find there are a lot more
business and professional associations than citizen advocacy groups,
66. The 2016 Future of Australia’s Federation Survey of nearly 3,000 federal, state,
and local government public servants (Levy (2018)).

trade unions or not-for-profits that deliver services but also advocate for Figure 2.4: Different industries prioritise different channels of influence
community causes.67 They were particularly concerned by the lack of Share of external political donations, contacts and meetings in Queensland
voices for less privileged and less well-resourced groups.68 30%
Donations Commercial Meetings with
($5.5m in total) lobbying contacts senior ministers
(700 in total) (600 in total)
2.2 Relationships matter (and can be bought)
Industry share of state
Relationships matter in politics because they affect both the opportunity gross value added
20%
to influence and the likelihood of influence. Individuals with personal
connections are more likely to get time with policy makers and a
sympathetic hearing when they do (Box 3). Studies in the US have
found lobbyists are paid more for their connections than their expertise,
10%
and former government officials have more success in influencing
policy than other lobbyists.69
Hiring or employing people with the right connections is another way to

‘buy’ influence.70 The ‘revolving door’ between policy and lobbying roles 0%
Prop. + Transport Gambling Manufact. Health + Edu
is a growing feature of the Australian political landscape.
Constr'n
Mining + Prof. Financial Retail + Other
Former government officials make up a large and growing share of Energy Services Wholesale industry
commercial lobbyists at the federal level (Figure 2.5).71 There is a Notes: ‘NA’ and ‘Multiple Categories’ excluded (41 per cent of major donors, mostly
individuals). All donations as at April 2018. Lobbying contacts includes only clients with
good reason for this: lobbying firms that employ former government
at least five contacts. The gambling industry’s share of gross value added is shown as
officials are more successful at getting meetings with government. In all of ‘Arts and Recreation’, although gambling represents only a subset.
Queensland, there are about 170 registered lobbying firms, but the top Sources: ECQ (2018), QIC (2018), Queensland Government (2018) and ABS (2017).
67. Fraussen and Halpin (2016). But they did note that the union sector has
considerable organisational capacity.
68. Fraussen and Halpin (ibid.) suggest that hybrid groups, which are more services-
oriented than advocacy-oriented, such as St Vincent De Paul, may be the main
form of representation for the less-privileged.
69. Bertrand et al. (2011); La Pira and H. F. Thomas (2014); Blanes i Vidal et al.
(2012); and Baumgartner et al. (2009).
70. Hiring people with the right connections can help ‘outsiders’ get a foot in the door.
Arguably this enables access for more groups, but this avenue of influence is still
only available to those that can afford it.
71. Former government officials includes former federal ministers, assistant ministers,
ministerial staff, agency heads, public servants and members of the defence force
(PM&C (2018a)).

Box 2: What would balance look like?
There is no clear benchmark for ‘balanced’ political engagement.a ∙ Businesses that operate in industries heavily affected by
But to gauge the access and influence of different groups, this government decisions (high regulation businesses) and
report organises data on ministerial meetings and political donations those less affected by government regulation (low regulation
according to three main criteria. businesses). Industries defined as high regulation include property
development, transport, mining, energy, gambling, defence
1. What type of interest they represent industries, financial services, telecommunications and media.b
Employers, employees and consumers are often on different sides ∙ Publicly funded organisations and publicly owned businesses that
of policy debates, so we compare the access of these different might be reporting on their activities or seeking more funding or
interests. Community groups and single-issue groups may represent regulatory concessions.
another point of view, or may align with the consumer interest on
particular issues. We have gathered those representing the interests 3. How important they are in the broader economy
of consumers, a community, or a specific cause into a ‘CCC’ category Another benchmark is an industry’s contribution to the economy. All
for comparison to the access of more organised employer (business) else being equal, larger industries would be expected to command
and employee (union) interests. more access because they represent a bigger share of employers,
employees and consumers. We have classified businesses and other
2. How likely they are to be seeking policy influence
interest groups by industry (where possible) and compared each
There is huge diversity within employer, employee and CCC interests. industry’s access against its share of gross value added.
We have separated these groups into sub-categories to differentiate
those that are most likely to seek policy influence, such as dedicated Notes: (a) European Institute for Public Participation (2009); (b) Companies were
advocacy groups and businesses with the most to gain from influencing individually classified based on their main industry and IBISWorld’s assessment of
government decisions. Our categories include: the level of regulation and government policy in that industry (heavy, medium or light).
Industries classified by IBISWorld as ‘heavy’ in terms of regulation and government
∙ Lobbying firms, peak bodies and unions who specialise in policy we identify as ‘high regulation’. Industries classified as ‘medium’ or ‘light’
we identify as ‘low regulation’. In some cases we made our own assessments; for
advocacy and influence for their clients or members; example, IBISWorld classifies sports clubs as heavily regulated because they must
abide by the rules of their governing bodies, but because those governing bodies
∙ Professional services firms that might be seeking access on behalf are not local, state or federal government, we classify sports clubs as ‘low regulation’
of a client or looking to win work themselves; except if gambling is a major part of their business.

10 firms have made 70 per cent of lobbying contacts since 2013. Eight Figure 2.5: The ‘revolving door’ phenomenon is growing
of the top 10 lobbying firms employ former politicians or advisers.72 At
the federal level, seven out of the top 10 lobbying firms (by number of 250 50%
Number of lobbyists who were As a share of all lobbyists
clients) employ former politicians or advisers.73 former government reps (LHS) (RHS)
200 40%
Since 1990, around a quarter of former federal ministers or assistant
ministers have taken up roles with special interests after political life
(Figure 2.6 on page 24). 150 30%
While ministers are more likely to go from politics to lucrative lobbying

roles (a ‘golden escalator’ rather than a revolving door),74 ministerial 100 20%
staff move in both directions. Researchers have documented
substantial movement between ministerial offices and lobbying roles
in the energy and resources sectors and vice versa.75 Such movement 50 10%
creates a certain ‘cosiness’ and increases the likelihood that the
well-resourced are heard more often and more sympathetically in policy
discussions. This poses a risk to good decision-making: policy makers 0 0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
should be listening to interest groups with the best ideas, not simply
Source: Grattan analysis of the Australian Government Lobbyists Register (PM&C
those with the right connections (Box 3).76 (2018a)) in Feb/March each year since first made public in 2012.
72. Grattan analysis of Queensland’s register of lobbying contacts (QIC (2018)).

Queensland is the only state that publishes lobbying contacts.
73. While the firms with former government officials are more active, there doesn’t
appear to be much difference in the distribution of clients, by type of interest or
by industry, between lobbying firms that include former government officials and
those that don’t (Grattan analysis of 1848 clients on the federal lobby register
(PM&C (2018a)) as at April 2018).
74. A. Lucas (2018).
75. A. Lucas (2018); and A. Lucas and Holland (2018).
76. La Pira and H. F. Thomas (2014). Transparency International Australia documents
several examples of ‘mateship’ between politicians and mining industry executives
being used as a justification for misconduct or corruption (Transparency
International Australia (2017)).

Box 3: Who you know matters more than what you know
‘There are three important things to know about lobbying: contacts, Case study: Adani leverages relationships
contacts, contacts.’a
Mining company Adani has been particularly active in using lobbyists
Studies in the US have shown that political connections make a big with the right connections. Adani hired former Queensland ALP State
difference in the lobbying industry.b Lobbyists switch issues as the Secretary Cameron Milner to lead its lobbying of the Queensland ALP
politicians they are connected to move to new portfolios.c Lobbyists Government.k Between 2015 and 2017, Milner’s lobbying firm made 33
with connections to a senator lose 24 per cent of their revenue, on contacts with government officials, more than any other firm on behalf
average, when that senator leaves office.d And lobbyists get more of any other client. Six out of ten of the Premier’s personal meetings
revenue when the party they are aligned with is in power.e with lobbyists were with Adani’s lobbyists, and at least three of these
included Milner.l
In Australia, the fortunes of two of the biggest lobbying firms also rise
and fall with particular political parties. In 2012, when Labor was in Adani has also been lobbying federal politicians through a firm with
office, the ALP-aligned lobbying firm Hawker Britton was Australia’s powerful connections on both sides of politics. The firm is led by former
largest (by number of clients).f In 2018, with the Coalition in office, Queensland ALP Treasurer Damien Power and former Queensland
it had fallen to eighth, and the Coalition-aligned Barton Deakin had Nationals Premier Rob Borbidge.m
become the top lobbying firm.g
After Adani’s extraordinary level of access to senior policy makers, it
Senior lobbyists in Washington, London and Brussels have said in won policy concessions for its proposed Carmichael mine, including
interviews that “it is all about who you know”, and identify one-on-one deferment of mining royalties, compulsory acquisition of land, and a
relationships as a key to getting the job done.h ‘critical infrastructure’ declaration.n The federal government considered
It’s human nature that we’re more likely to listen to those we know a $900 million loan for a rail line to the mine, but it was vetoed by the
and like. Establishing credibility is critical to persuasion, and existing Queensland Government after controversy arose about the extent of
relationships help clear that initial barrier.i Psychological studies show the Premier’s dealings with Adani.o The state and federal governments
that interpersonal concerns and emotions affect decision making.j are, however, still considering other ways to support the mine.p
Notes: (a) McGrath (2006); (b) McGrath (2006), Baumgartner et al. (2009), Blanes
i Vidal et al. (2012) and La Pira and H. F. Thomas (2014); (c) Bertrand et al. (2011); (d)
Blanes i Vidal et al. (2012); (e) Bertrand et al. (2011); (f) Halpin and Warhurst (2015);
(g) Grattan analysis of PM&C (2018a); (h) McGrath (2006); (i) Conger (1998); (j) e.g. Notes: (k) Long (2017a); (l) Grattan analysis of QIC (2018); (m) PM&C (2018b); (n)
Loewenstein et al. (1989) and Clore and Huntsinger (2007). Long (2017a); (o) Robertson (2017); (p) Hasham (2018).

2.3 Hospitality and travel: gifts that buy access Figure 2.6: A quarter of federal ministers or assistant ministers take on
roles with special interests after politics
Politicians meet in a variety of places with a variety of people pushing
particular views. It’s part of their job. But it can be a slippery slope from
After political life
meetings in the office, to meetings over lunch (who pays?) to hospitality Coalition Special interests (28%)
in corporate boxes at sporting events and sponsored international Peak body
travel. Lobby firm
Big business
Sponsored hospitality is another way well-resourced interests can get Consulting
more access to decision makers. Events and travel offer a more relaxed Official / media (25%)
and less time-constrained setting to build relationships. Key gov’t

Media
Federal politicians have accepted at least 55 corporate-sponsored Political party
Gov’t
overseas trips since 2010, according to analysis by the Australian Labor Other (47%)
Strategic Policy Institute of politicians’ disclosures.77 About 68 per cent Business
of federal ministers and shadow ministers have declared corporate- Other

sponsored hospitality (events or travel)78 and 7 per cent have accepted
overseas trips sponsored by a foreign government or agency.79 Such Retired or
hospitality can create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. And deceased
gifts and benefits can make favoured treatment more likely.80

Notes: Includes 191 people who were either federal ministers or assistant ministers
and left politics in the 1990s or later. Some have had more than one role since. ‘Big
There are some rules for federal ministers designed to reduce conflicts business’ is Top 2000 Australian firms by revenue in 2016.
of interest, but not for other MPs. The Ministerial Standards require Source: Grattan analysis of Parlinfo.aph.gov.au (2018), LinkedIn (2018), Wikipedia
that ministers “do not come under any financial or other obligation to (2018), news articles and various internet sources.
individuals or organisations to the extent that they may appear to be
influenced improperly in the performance of their official duties”. But
77. Clarence (2018).

78. Ministers, assistant ministers, shadow ministers and shadow assistant ministers
declared 242 instances of sponsored events and travel, at an average of 2.7 each.
79. Grattan analysis of all ministers’, assistant ministers’, shadow ministers’ and
shadow assistant ministers’ declarations, as at August 2018 (Registrar of
Members’ Interests (2018) and Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests
(2018)).
80. Axelrod (1986); and Malmendier and Schmidt (2017).

ministers are still allowed to accept “customary official gifts, hospitality, Disparity in access is a concern if it translates into policy decisions that
tokens of appreciation, and similar formal gestures”.81 benefit the few at the expense of the many. Government procurement
decisions can be lucrative targets for special interest influence, so they
The Queensland code of conduct is stricter: it specifies that ministers
are usually subject to strict rules. Yet there are still examples where
should not accept sponsored hospitality.82 Yet senior ministers in
those with relationships and disproportionate access appear to have
Queensland attended sports events with corporate interests on at
extracted ‘special deals’:
least 15 occasions in 2017.83 This is not necessarily a breach of the
code – they may have paid their own way, for example – but clearly this
∙ James Packer’s unsolicited proposal for a new Sydney casino was
approach to relationship-building and influence is commonplace, and
accepted without a competitive tender process,85 influenced its
has the potential to create conflicts of interest.
own tax rate and achieved an exemption from smoke-free laws.86
The site was also carved out of the CBD ‘lockout law’ zone.87
2.4 Access can lead to undue influence Packer personally pitched the project to NSW Premier Barry
When certain interests get a lot more access to decision makers, there O’Farrell – and just a week after the meeting (and two weeks
is a risk that policy gets skewed in their favour. Our analysis shows before Packer formally lodged his proposal) a requirement for
that highly regulated businesses have the most meetings with senior independent evaluation of unsolicited proposals was removed.88
politicians, make the most use of commercial lobbyists and, as the next
∙ The Catholic schools lobby, unhappy with the federal Coalition
chapter shows, are also disproportionately large donors. Many of these
government’s proposed move to a sector-neutral, needs-based
businesses have the resources to hire former politicians and advisers,
school funding formula, received a pledge of an additional
and to woo politicians through hospitality. And unions are significant
$250 million from Labor.89 This coincided with the 2018 Batman
donors and have substantial avenues of influence in the ALP, including
by-election, and the lobby threw its weight behind Labor in the
outside of formal meetings.
by-election.90
When access skews heavily towards a narrow range of interests, policy
makers may end up with a narrow perspective (Chapter 1). Some ∙ The private toll road operator Transurban has successfully
perspectives are conspicuously under-represented, such as broad pitched five major infrastructure projects to state governments via
constituencies that are difficult to organise (e.g. consumers and young
people) and disadvantaged groups that lack the capacity to engage 85. There was a late counter-bid by Star Casino, considered by an independent
with policy processes (Chapter 4).84 steering committee, but no formal tender process (Clennell and Lehmann (2013)
and Saulwick (2013)).
81. Australian Government (2018b). 86. Saulwick (2013); Markham and M. Young (2015); and Patrick (2016).
82. Queensland Government (2016). 87. Bradley (2016).
83. Grattan analysis of published diaries of the Premier, Deputy Premier and 88. Independent evaluation had previously been required before an unsolicited
Treasurer (Queensland Government (2018)). Queensland is the only state that proposal could proceed without a tender process (Nicholls (2012)).
publishes events attended. 89. McGowan (2018).
84. Schlozman et al. (2012); Fraussen and Halpin (2016); and Head (2007). 90. Benson (2018).

unsolicited proposals, risking poorer outcomes for taxpayers and – party because of political ideology and manoeuvring and
drivers compared to a competitive tender process.91 partly by aggressive lobbying to expand industry compensation
arrangements and a public advertising campaign.94 No
In other cases, special interests effectively have ‘a seat at the table’ government since has been able to deliver an effective and
when it comes to policy design in their sector: durable policy to address climate change.
∙ The pharmaceuticals industry has substantial influence over ∙ Intense lobbying by the beverages industry has so far kept a
government pricing arrangements for medicines, including the sugar-sweetened beverages tax at bay, despite good public health
technical details of how prices are determined. The effect of arguments and the support of the general public.95
the pricing regime is that prices are higher than in comparable
∙ Clubs and hotels have aggressively and successfully rallied
countries, and Australian taxpayers and consumers pay more than
against poker machine reforms to reduce problem gambling. The
they should.92
main lobby groups used a combination of lobbying, keenly timed
∙ Affiliated unions have substantial influence in the ALP. Some of political donations (Chapter 3) and public campaigns to dissuade
this is out in the open (such as voting rights at state and national governments from implementing reforms such as mandatory
conferences), but some is quite opaque (such as back-room deals pre-commitment.
to secure pre-selection of candidates). A problem arises when
Appendix A details these examples. None of them suggest outright
union influence over party policy appears to protect the interests
corruption or that buying off special interest groups was the only
of union officials at the expense of workers and the general
political factor at play. But they do indicate that policy with limited
public. For example, Labor opposes having more independent
merit and little public support can nevertheless prevail if motivated and
directors on the boards of superannuation funds despite it being
well-resourced groups support it.
a recommendation of three independent inquires. The change
would reduce the power of unions to choose directors for industry
funds.93 2.5 Existing checks and balances are weak
The checks and balances on lobbying activity in Australia are weak.
Special interests also commonly focus their lobbying efforts on Existing instruments such as registration of lobbyists and codes of
blocking reforms that have broad support: conduct are ineffective because they apply selectively and are not
enforced. There is barely any public information about contact between
∙ In 2007, both major parties went to the federal election with
lobbyists and officials at the federal level.
plans to introduce an emissions trading scheme to help combat
climate change. But the policy consensus was quickly derailed The only real restriction on lobbying activity is the undertaking by
ministers, ministerial advisers, and senior public servants not to lobby
91. C. Lucas (2017a); C. Lucas (2017b); and Ludlow and Wiggins (2018).
92. Duckett et al. (2013); and PC (2015). 94. Pezzey et al. (2010); T. Wood and Edis (2011); and Lane (2011).
93. Mather and Coorey (2018); and Minifie (2015). 95. WHO (2015); Duckett et al. (2016); and Essential (2018).

within 12-18 months of leaving office.96 This is important because are unions. As Figure 2.6 shows, more former ministers take up roles
of the privileged information they have access to, and the risk that a as in-house lobbyists than in commercial lobbying firms.100
minister might make decisions in office with future career prospects
in mind. But the waiting period is only an administrative obligation, it Third party lobbyists who are not registered are not supposed to lobby.
applies narrowly (Table 2.1), and there is no penalty for a breach. But the onus is on government representatives to identify lobbyists,
check they are registered, and report any breaches to the relevant
There are also gaps in the checks on public officials. In democratic department.101 This is a stretch for busy politicians and their offices,
societies, codes of conduct are widely considered to be the norm for and if they do report breaches and the department follows them up,
public officials.97 Yet our federal parliament has no such code, and then the penalty is laughable: deregistration.102
about a third of the Commonwealth workforce is not covered by either
Many lobbyists walk the corridors of Parliament House unregistered,
the Australian Public Service code of conduct or an authority that
either because they fall outside the narrow subset required to register,
investigates misconduct.98
because they never bothered to register, or because they have been
deregistered. The number of sponsored security passes for access
2.5.1 Checks on lobbying activity to Parliament House gives a sense of the scale of ‘invisible’ lobbying
All Australian states and the Commonwealth Government have activity:103 there are more than three times as many passes as there
lobbying codes of conduct and maintain registers of lobbyists. At are individuals on the lobbyists register.104
the federal level, these were introduced “to ensure that contact
The lobbying register provides (limited) information about who lobbies
between lobbyists and Commonwealth Government representatives
but nothing about who is being lobbied, how frequently, or on what
is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency,
issues. The Australian National Audit Office found that the lobby
integrity and honesty”.99 But in their current form, these instruments do
register “does not, on its own, provide transparency into the integrity
not fulfil that objective. They apply only to a narrow subset of lobbyists
of the contact between lobbyists and government representatives or the
and largely go unpoliced.
matters discussed”.105
Only ‘third party’ lobbyists are captured by the register and the code. 100. Tham (2010, p. 248) makes a similar observation.
Many large companies and interest groups have in-house public affairs 101. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been responsible since 2008,
and government relations personnel who are not required to register. but responsibility recently shifted to the Attorney-General’s Department.
Peak bodies, such as the Business Council of Australia, and campaign 102. Easton (2018a); and Special Minister Of State (2018).
103. Sponsored security passes grant unescorted access to secure areas of
organisations, such as GetUp!, are not required to register either. Nor
Parliament House to people who need ‘significant and regular business access’.
Jacqui Lambie argues that if your job requires this level of access to politicians,
96. 18 months for ministers (Australian Government (2018b)) and 12 months for then what you are doing should be considered lobbying and you should be
advisers and senior public servants (Australian Government (2018a)). required to register as a lobbyist (Lambie (2017a)), Chapter 5.
97. House of Representatives Standing Committee (2011, pp. 23–24). 104. As at 31 July 2018, there were 1,755 sponsored security passes, compared to
98. Brown et al. (2018). 500 lobbyists on the register.
99. PM&C (2018a). 105. Easton (2018a).

Regulation of lobbying activity in Australia is considered weak among Figure 2.7: Australia’s lobbying regulation is not particularly robust by
OECD countries106 and in other international rankings (Figure 2.7).107 international standards
Australia appears to be particularly behind in visibility of contact Centre for Public Integrity’s index for assessing the strength of lobbying
regulations
between lobbyists and government officials, and in enforcement
70
(Figure 2.8).
60
NSW, Queensland and the ACT make lobbying more transparent by
publishing ministerial diaries.108 The diaries provide some insights but
50
are not searchable, and rarely identify the policy issues discussed.
40
2.5.2 ‘Revolving door’ ban
30
Most OECD countries don’t restrict senior policy makers moving to
lobbying roles, so Australia appears to be ahead of the game in this 20
area.109 But given the restrictions are not enforced, this is a win on
10
paper only.
0
When someone becomes a federal minister in Australia, they must
commit to waiting at least 18 months after their ministerial duties cease
before lobbying on any issue they were officially involved with in their
final 18 months in office. Table 2.1 highlights examples of Ministers Notes: The index is built from 48 survey questions on lobbying disclosure rules. The
moving into special interest roles soon after leaving office which likely index methodology was developed by the US Centre for Public Integrity and was
do not breach the current code but which nonetheless may raise applied to lobbying regulation in various countries by Chari et al. (2010). This chart
reports their findings. The implications for Australia are further summarised in Hogan et
concerns.
al. (2011).
The Ministerial Standards are merely administrative – former ministers Sources: Chari et al. (2010) and Hogan et al. (2011).
who move straight into a lobbying position are breaking the rules, not
the law, and the only sanction is loss of ministerial duties, which is
106. OECD (2014).

107. Hogan et al. (2011).
108. Queensland (since January 2013), NSW (since July 2014), and the ACT (since
January 2018). But the NSW diaries only cover a narrow range of meetings; they
miss events and other official engagements where lobbying might take place.
109. OECD (Vol.3 2014, p. 74).

of little consequence to a former minister.110 The revolving door ban Figure 2.8: Australia is behind Canada, the UK and the US in the
appears to be toothless in practice. transparency and accountability of lobbying activity
Ministerial advisers and senior public servants are also subject to a Canada UK US Australia
revolving door ban for a period of 12 months.111 But again, if a breach Lobbying Law Law for lobbyist Law Administrative
is reported and established, the sanction is merely deregistration. regime register
Code of Yes Industry code(s) No Yes
The successful French bid to supply Australia with a new fleet of conduct
submarines was led by the former Chief of Staff to the Defence Lobbyists Third party and Third party Third party and Third party
Minister, who left his position in January 2015 and joined the French covered in-house in-house
bid four months later.112 There was no sanction. Revolving door Yes Yes Yes Yes
bans (5 years) (18 months)
Administrative Commissioner of Registrar Secretary of the Attorney-
2.5.3 Conclusion responsibility Lobbying appointed by govt, Senate and Clerk of General's Dept /
(independent) funded by the House of Reps PM&C
registration fees
Special interests with much to gain or lose from policy outcomes
Sanctions Fines, prison Fines Fines, prison Deregistration
will always look for opportunities to put their case and attempt to
influence decision makers. Lobbying regulations are supposed to Meetings with Register contains Details of Lobbyists report Only NSW,
shine light on their influence to ensure that other groups, the media lobbyists details of those ministerial quarterly on their QLD and ACT
lobbied and subject meetings published activities for each publish
and parliament can provide a counter-balance. But Australia’s existing matter, updated on departmental client, including meetings
rules on lobbying activity are weak and provide little comfort to anyone monthly websites details of the
subject matter
concerned about undue influence over policy. Chapter 5 sets out some
Source: Adapted from McKeown (2014).
proposals to improve the regulation of lobbying.
110. Take one example: Bruce Billson accepted a lobbying role within six months of
retiring as minister, but while still a sitting MP. He was censured by parliament
for failing to declare his new paid employment – but not for accepting the paid
employment in the first place, nor for breaching the revolving door ban. Billson’s
offence was not even deemed worthy of a $5,000 fine (Fantin (2018)).
111. Australian Government (2018a, section 7.2).
112. McPhedran (2015).

Table 2.1: Many former ministers have moved into special interest roles but usually do not breach the letter of the code
Name Retirement Interest group <18 months? Justification
Ian Macfarlane, Sep 2015 Queensland Resources Council Yes – appointed Peak bodies not required to register as lobbyistsa
Industry Minster Sep 2016
Bruce Billson, Small Sep 2015 Franchise Council of Australia Yes – appointed Payments in office ‘commonplace and acceptable’;b Peak
Business Minister (minister); May Mar 2016 while still bodies not required to register as lobbyists
2016 (parliament) in parliament
Andrew Robb, Feb 2016 Landbridge Group (Chinese Yes – appointed Jul ‘Broad portfolio’, “must be careful he isn’t prohibited
Trade Minster multinational) 2016 completely from work”;c in-house lobbyists not required to
register
Martin Ferguson, Mar 2013 APPEA (oil and gas peak body) Yes – appointed Oct Peak bodies not required to register as lobbyists
Resources Minster 2013d
Mark Arbib, Small Mar 2012 Consolidated Press Holdings Yes – appointed Jun In-house lobbyists not required to register
Business Minister (Packer) 2012e
Nick Sherry, Small Dec 2011 Citi (financial services Yes – joined in Oct In-house lobbyists not required to register
Business Minister multinational) 2012f
Examples outside the 18-month window
Stephen Conroy, Jul 2013 (Minister); Responsible Wagering Australia No – appointed Nov Revolving door ban only applies to ministers, not those
Minister for Sep 2016 (gambling peak body) 2016 retiring in opposition
Communications (parliament)
Simon Crean, Mar 2013 Australian Livestock Exporters No – appointed Oct Waited 18-months
Minister for Council 2014
Regional Australia
Notes: Restrictions on the post-separation employment of ministers were first introduced in December 2007. The ‘retirement’ date is retirement from ministerial duties unless otherwise
specified. (a) Henderson and Bradfield (2016); (b) Long (2017b); (c) Belot (2017b); (d) Manning (2014); (e) Nicholls and Feneley (2012); (f) Sherry (2018). This table has been updated from
the original release of this report.
Source: Grattan analysis.

3 The money problem in Australian politics
Australian politics has a money problem. Political parties received Political donations are protected under the Constitution’s implied
$43 million in declared donations at the 2016 federal election. These freedom of political communication,114 so a blanket ban would almost
donations were remarkably concentrated – just 5 per cent of donors certainly be struck down by the High Court (Box 4).115
contributed more than 50 per cent of donated funds. And the lion’s
share of donations came from donors with the most to gain from Political donations can contribute to a healthy democracy. Private
government policy decisions. funds make it easier for smaller parties to contest elections. And the
fundraising process can make politicians more accountable to their
Political donations give well-resourced groups more face-time with our
constituents.116
politicians. Donations build relationships and a sense of reciprocity.
Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare: ‘you never bribe someone when
you need them’, as the saying goes. But given how often industries Private funding is particularly important during election campaigns,
in the crosshairs of a policy debate make large donations – and then which are expensive in Australia (Section 3.3). Federal and state
stop donating after the policy battle is won – it seems that some donors governments, via the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and state
believe, perhaps rightly, that money can influence policy. electoral commissions, reimburse parties for some of their campaign
expenditure. However, this is usually paid after the election. To bridge
Commonwealth regulation of political donations is weak. There is a the gap, parties rely on loans and private money, including donations,
lot of ‘hidden’ money in the Australian political system. Forty per cent to fund campaign costs.
of the money received by political parties at the last election had no
identifiable source. Donations are not made public until long after But just because political donations can be beneficial doesn’t mean the
they are made, and there are few sanctions when political parties or current donations regime is working. Lax controls, regulatory loopholes
donors don’t follow the rules. Stronger legislation in some states can be and a lack of transparency have left our political system vulnerable to
circumvented through looser regulations at the federal level. undue influence.
More needs to be done to ensure that money does not corrupt our
public debate.
3.1 Donations play an important role in Australia’s political 114. The Constitution prescribes a system of representative democracy for our federal
system. . . government (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900, s 7, 24, 128)).
By implication, the Constitution contains a freedom of political communication
Some commentators suggest private money has no place in politics.113 because public discussion is deemed necessary for people to make reasoned
But banning donations altogether is neither possible nor desirable. political choices (Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992 108 ALR 681, 704)).
115. Schott et al. (2014).
113. Caldwell (2016); Steketee (2017); and McDermott et al. (2016). 116. Ibid.

3.2 . . . but without proper regulation, there is a risk donations

can ‘buy’ policy Box 4: Political donations are protected by the Constitution’s
implied freedom of political communication
Political donations cause problems if they encourage policy makers
to put the interests of donors ahead of others. When money can buy Political donations provide resources for political activity and
political access and influence, there is a greater risk of crony capitalism advertising, and therefore restrictions on donations indirectly
and government run for the few and not the many.117 impinge on the Constitution’s implied freedom of political
communication.a As a result, there are limits on how political
Corruption and bribery are illegal118 and rare in Australia’s political donations can be regulated.
system. Only one federal MP has ever been jailed for corruption
offences.119 But a focus on outright corruption is a distraction from The High Court has ruled that restrictions on political donations
other ways political donations can serve well-resourced groups at the are valid only if they are compatible with representative
expense of the national interest.120 Donations may distort policymaking democracy, and if they are reasonably appropriate and adapted
even when the link between money and outcomes is indirect.121 to their stated purpose.b To determine whether a law is valid under
the Constitution, the High Court considers whether it is suitable,
Donations can directly or indirectly buy access to politicians. And necessary and ‘adequate in its balance’.c The Court would be
access matters: it’s human nature for people to be persuaded by likely to view full public funding – equivalent to a ban on political
arguments put to them by people they know.122 If one side of a policy donations – as unnecessary to protect representative democracy.d
debate gets disproportionate access, their views will often be given But other, less extreme, measures such as donations caps have
disproportionate weight (Chapter 2).123 Professor Joo-Cheong Tham been ruled as constitutionally valid.e
117. Crony capitalism, where an individual’s success in business depends on a. Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 252 CLR 530, 554.
maintaining a close relationship with government officials, encourages b. McCloy v New South Wales (2015).
rent-seeking (Chapter 1), thereby slowing economic growth (Abdel Fadil (2013), c. McCloy v New South Wales (2015), 194-195.
Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) and Haber (2002)). Cronyism also generates d. Schott et al. (2014). Chapter 5.
economic inequality by allowing privileged asset-holders to earn rents, usually at e. For instance, in McCloy v New South Wales (2015) the Court found that
the expense of everyone else (Haber (2002, p. xvi)). donations caps and bans on donations from property developers were
118. Illegal corruption requires establishing a direct link between a financial valid because the provisions “in fact enhance the system of representative
contribution and a specific outcome as well as a corrupt or dishonest motive, government” (178, 194). But in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013),
which is a high bar (Tham (2010, p. 73)). the Court found that provisions to restrict potential donors to those people
119. Andrew Theophanous. Tham (ibid., p. 71). on the electoral roll were invalid, because there was no accepted reason
120. Ibid. why a donation from an organisation was more conducive to corruption
121. Ibid. (p. 75). than a donation from an individual (Unions NSW, 557).
122. As shown by the use of celebrities in advertising, e.g. Petty et al. (1983)).
Donations to a party can signal shared values, which is important to persuasion
too (e.g. Nelson and Garst (2005)). Box 3 on page 23 discusses the importance
of relationships in lobbying.
123. Powell (2012, p. 2).

has argued that putting a price on access not only illegitimately should still be concerned if political donations are an effective tool of
empowers those who can afford to pay for it, but also illegitimately influence only sometimes.130
disempowers those who can’t.124
The link between access and influence can be compounded by a sense 3.3 The campaign finance ‘triad’
of reciprocity.125 Sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1960) established that
there is an almost universal tendency to respond to a gift or positive There’s a lot of money involved in Australian federal elections. Political
action with a positive action in return.126 Donations, especially large parties received more than $185 million in the lead-up to the 2016
ones, may trigger this natural desire to ‘give back’ or be helpful – even federal election, and another $208 million in the following financial year
without any dishonest motive. Regular interactions between donors and (which included the final days of the election campaign).131 Parties
politicians build relationships and a sense of obligation.127 collectively spent $368 million over the two financial years spanning
the election.132
Ultimately the risk is that donations introduce a conflict between the
financial interests of political parties, and their assessment of the Election funding comes from three sources (Figure 3.1). About a third
national interest.128 If donations undermine merit-based decision- of party receipts are government funding, distributed by the AEC and
making, they corrode representative democracy.129
International evidence linking political donations to companies’

returns is mixed (Box 5). But given the measurement difficulties – it 130. Like other tools of influence, donations are more likely to be more influential when
is particularly hard to quantify the benefits to an interest group when the public is less engaged in the policy debate, such as when the policy area is
technical, or the losers from the policy change are diffuse (Chapter 1).
an unfavourable policy is taken off the table – this is little comfort. We
131. Including intra-party receipts, tax returns and non-electoral funding from public
bodies e.g. Dept of Finance (Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC
124. Tham (2010, p. 86). 2015-16 and 2016-17). The 2016 election was held on Saturday 2 July, so
125. Justice Stephen Gageler AC cited evidence that “the basic human tendency campaign income and expenditure bridge two financial years. Public funding
towards reciprocity means that payments all too readily tend to result in favours” for the 2016 election campaign appears in parties’ 2016-17 annual returns, as do
in his judgement on McCloy v New South Wales (2015 257 CLR 175). large private donations that were clearly intended to support their 2016 federal
126. Gouldner (1960). See also Berg et al. (1995), Fehr and Gächter (2000), Komter election campaign (Gartrell and Bagshaw (2018)).
(2007) and Schwartz (1967). 132. Party declarations to the AEC 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (2018a)). Parties spent
127. McMenamin (2013); Muller (2017a); and Tham (2010). $155 million in 2015-16 and $213 million in 2016-17. Not all reported expenditure
128. Powell (2012). was campaign related – parties are not required to separate ongoing costs from
129. Tham (2010, p. 86). In a joint judgement on McCloy v NSW (2015, 36), four High campaign expenses. Nevertheless, election expenditure seems high in Australia
Court judges cited a 2003 ruling to suggest there are different forms of corruption compared to most countries. Australian political parties spent more than those
aside from explicit quid pro quo exchange. The judges held that another “more in the UK (AU$66 million in 2017), Canada (AU$126 million in 2015), and New
subtle” form of corruption arises from “the danger that officeholders will decide Zealand (AU$11 million in 2017). But Australian party expenditure was a drop
issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to in the ocean compared to US Presidential elections (AU$8.7 billion in 2016)
the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the (Elections Canada (2018a), Elections NZ (2018), Sultan (2017) and UK Electoral
officeholder”. Commission (2018a)).

state electoral commissions.133 Public funding in Australia is neither

Box 5: Why donate to political parties?
high nor low by international standards (Figure 3.2).
The international evidence on corporate donations and firm
A quarter comes from known private sources: declared donations and performance is mixed. A major study of firms in the United States
‘other receipts’ from private sources.134 Donations are a ‘gift’, a transfer found companies that make large political contributions have lower
of money or property that is not given in exchange for something of returns than firms that don’t.a Studies in the United Kingdom show
equal value. ‘Other receipts’ include income from investments and that corporate political donations fell when shareholders were
loans, but also payments for a service, such as fundraising dinners.135 given more say on corporate political activity.b A meta-analysis
of studies on donations and votes cast by members of the US
The remaining 40 per cent is money from sources we know nothing
Congress found evidence of donor influence is “thin”.c
about.136 A lot of this is likely to be donations below the disclosure
threshold. Some of these will be from ‘mum and dad’ donors who Other research suggests it is difficult to trace the link between
give small amounts to support a political cause. But some is probably private money and political outcomes, because the inputs and
‘donation splitting’137 – where donors make multiple payments below outcomes are hard to measure. For instance, it may be possible
the threshold – which the parties don’t need to disclose.138 If this for donors to prevent unfavourable proposals from becoming
policy, in which case the full impact of contributions is difficult for
133. $63 million in federal public funding flowed to parties via the AEC for the 2016 researchers to quantify (Appendix A details examples of this).d
election campaign. The parties also declared $52 million from state electoral
commissions on their federal receipts in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Studies that look at broader policy outcomes tend to find more
134. $94 million in the two financial years around the 2016 federal election. evidence of donor influence, especially when donations are
135. B. Keane (2016). Parties often declare income from the ATO, the Department of
Finance, electoral commissions and other public sources as an ‘other receipt’,
coupled with access and lobbying.e If money does talk in politics,
which adds to the opacity of the disclosure system. We have removed this it does so “softly and subtly”.f
income from our calculation of parties’ private receipts.
a. Aggarwal et al. (2012). Hadani and Schuler (2013) came to a similar
136. Parties received $91 million in non-itemised funding in the lead-up to the election,
conclusion, but not for firms in regulated industries – their market
and $63 million in the following financial year.
performance improves.
137. B. Edwards (2018).
b. Pender (2016).
138. AEC (2018c, Attachment 1). Donors are required to aggregate their own
c. Ansolabehere et al. (2003).
donations and declare them separately to the AEC if they reach the disclosure
d. Powell (2012).
threshold. However, inconsistencies in donor declarations and party declarations
e. Smith (2015). Policy outcomes studied include government contracts to
make collating the two sources difficult. Donor declarations rely on donors
contributing firms (Witko (2011) and Zullo (2006)), taxation policy (Chirinko
knowing their obligations, and some clearly do not: a study by the ABC
and Wilson (2010)), industry subsidies (Liebman and Reynolds (2006)
found donors failed to declare nearly $1.3 million in donations listed on party
and Lopez (2003)), regulatory outcomes (De Figueiredo and G. Edwards
declarations as well as 80 instances where donors declared their payment as a
(2007)), and political favours (Claessens et al. (2008)). A survey of US
donation, but the parties listed it as an ‘other receipt’ or subscription (McGhee
legislators found campaign contributions do influence policy (Powell
(2016)). Donors are not required to declare ‘other receipts’, so we rely on
(2012)).
party declarations for information about income from fundraising dinners or
f. McMenamin (2013).
membership fora.

Figure 3.1: Public funding makes up 30 per cent of election campaign Figure 3.2: Public funding in Australia is neither high nor low by
funding international standards
Party receipts by source, election years Public funding for elections per person, AUD 2016
100% $14
$12
80%
$10
Public
$8
60%
$6
mean: ~$4
$4
Private median: $2.60
40%
$2
$0
20%
Non-
0% itemised
2007-08 2010-11 2012-13/ 2015-16 /
2013-14 2016-17
Notes: ‘Public’ money includes both state and federal government funding declared by Note: Public funds have been adjusted to Australian dollars according to the average
parties to the AEC. It is not clear how much of state funding went towards the federal exchange rate for the year of the election. Chart excludes public funding for state or
election campaign. Tax returns and non-electoral funding from public bodies ( e.g. Dept local elections.
of Finance) are excluded. Itemised payments from different branches of the same party Sources: AEC (2018b), Elections Canada (provided), EuroPAM (2018), OSCE (2018),
are excluded. ‘Non-itemised’ receipts are the difference between total party receipts UK Electoral Commission (2018b) and The World Bank (2018).
and all itemised receipts. Under the unlikely assumption that all non-itemised funding
came from non-itemised party-to-party payments, public funding would still make up
less than 50 per cent of party receipts. We combine data for election campaigns that
spanned two financial years.
Source: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2007-08, 2010-11, 2012-13
and 2013-14, and 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (2018a)) and AEC annual reports.

‘non-itemised’ funding is largely private donations – which many have Figure 3.3: The bulk of declared donations come from a small share of
assumed – then Australia has remarkably high levels of private funding donors
per person by international standards.139 Percentage of total disclosed donations by percentage of donors, cumulative
sum, 2015-16 and 2016-17 combined
As Dr Belinda Edwards states, “there is so much we don’t know” about 100%
where political parties get their money.140 But the little we know raises Donation
percentile
red flags about the risk of policy capture. A small group of big donors
contribute most donated funds. Regular donors build relationships with
75%
parties and candidates. And most donations come from organisations
and individuals who stand to gain a lot if policy shifted in their favour.
3.3.1 A large share of donations comes from a small share of 50%

donors The top 5% of donors
contributed over half of
Most identified donations come from a handful of individuals and all declared donations
entities. Excluding funds from associated entities that run fundraising 25%
events or manage investments for the parties,141 the top 5 per cent of
donors contributed more than half of all declared donations in 2015-16 Donor
and 2016-17 (Figure 3.3). With all associated entities included, the percentile
0%
top 5 per cent of donors contributed nearly 60 per cent of declared 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 100%
donations. In other words, 36 people or organisations contributed $25 Notes: Chart excludes intra-party receipts declared as donations, and donations
million over the course of the 2016 campaign. without an identified donor. Parties were not required to declare donations of less than
$13,500, but the ALP and the Greens have set lower disclosure thresholds ($1,000 and
Most big donors have a strong relationship with the party they support. $1,500 respectively). Non-union associated entities excluded – see Appendix B. With
The top ten union donors (some of whom are associated entities) associated entities included, the top 5 per cent of donors contributed nearly 60 per cent
collectively contributed more than $6 million to the ALP. These unions, of all declared donations.
including the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association Source: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC
(2018a)).
(SDA), United Voice, and the CFMEU, have significant influence over
policy development and candidate selection.142 Heavy reliance on
139. OECD (2016).

140. B. Edwards (2018).
141. Associated entities are organisations that are closely linked to political parties.
See Appendix B for a full definition.
142. Millar and Schneiders (2015), Perpitch and Taylor (2013) and Willingham (2015).
A candidate’s seat in the Victorian upper house was filled by a CFMEU official

these donors reduces scope for the ALP to push back on policy and It is difficult to identify foreign donors in party receipts (Box 6). Two
process issues.143 organisations149 in the top 5 per cent of donors at the last election are
run by Chau Chak Wing, a Chinese-Australian citizen with alleged
Large donors also wield influence on the other side of the aisle. links to the Chinese Communist Party.150 ABC analysis found that
The Cormack Foundation, an associated entity of the Liberal Party, Chinese-linked companies and individuals gave around $5.5 million
contributed the largest amount of any single donor at the last election between 2013 and 2015.151
($4.5 million in the two financial years). The Foundation is an
independent body with close links to the Victorian Liberals, and it has
3.3.2 Donors with the most to gain contribute more
recently threatened to withhold funding unless the party implements
governance reforms.144 Malcolm Turnbull poured the next highest Highly regulated industries contribute the biggest share of political
amount into party coffers, followed by mining magnate Paul Marks,145 donations, followed by unions, and individuals with no known industry
and AusGold Mining Group, owned by the Chinese businesswoman links (Figure 3.4 on the following page).
who set up the ‘Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation’ last year.146
Such a high share of donations from heavily regulated industries
Most of the top 5 per cent of donors in 2016 also donated in the 2013 suggests that a prime motive for donating is access and influence, or
election, and a third of them were in the top 5 per cent of donors then at least a desire to see the more favourably-inclined party win power.
too.147 Regular major donors include unions, the Australian Hotels Businesses in some of these industries – property and construction,
Association, Village Roadshow, ANZ and Ms Roslyn Packer.148 mining, and gambling, for example – donate much more than would be
expected given their economic size (Figure 3.5 on the next page).
in 2017, contravening legal advice from party lawyers. A party official reportedly
Most donors say they contribute to political parties and their associated
stated: “If this was challenged, you wouldn’t be able to defend it in any court. . .
But the CFMEU has taken over the branch and everyone is too scared to do entities to support Australian democracy or to create a stable political
anything about it” (cited in Hannan (2017)). environment in which businesses can prosper.152
143. B. Keane (2017).
144. The Cormack Foundation, a $70 million investment fund, cut off regular donations This may well be a sincere motive. But if it was the primary consider-
to the Liberal Party in Victoria in 2016. In March 2018, the Victorian Liberals ation we would expect to see more donors contributing to both major
launched legal action over control of the funds, and in June a Federal Court
parties153 and fewer donations from industries with a lot of skin in the
judge ruled the Victorian Liberal Party held a claim over about 25 per cent of
the shares of the foundation but no right to seats on the board or its funds. The political game.
Foundation has since announced it will fund Victorian MPs but will continue to
withhold funding to the party’s administrative arm until reforms are implemented 149. Kingold Group and Hong Kong Kingson Investments.
(Hutchinson (2018a), Hutchinson (2018b) and J. Murphy (2018)). 150. Dr Chau has also been accused of conspiring to bribe a UN official (Gribbin and
145. Drill et al. (2015). Conifer (2018)).
146. Yaxley (2017). 151. Uhlmann and Greene (2017).
147. 65 per cent of the major donors (top 5 per cent) in 2015-16 and 2016-17 also 152. Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (2018).
donated in the two financial years covering the 2013 election. 153. Between 5 and 6 per cent of donors contributed to both Labor and the Coalition in
148. Grattan analysis of AEC receipts 2012-13. 2015-16 (and in 2016-17).

Figure 3.4: Corporates in highly regulated industries donate the largest Figure 3.5: Some industries dominate corporate donations
share, followed by unions Share of donations by industry, 2015-16 and 2016-17
Share of donations by donor group, 2015-16 and 2016-17 25%
50% Industry share of gross
value added, 2017
20%
40%
15%
30%
10%
20%
5%
10%
0%
Mining Property + Gambling Manufact. Financial Media Prof. Transport Retail
Mining C'
Gambling Financial Prof.
Services
RetailHealth
Edu
+ Other
Other
Property + Media + Services Health +
0% Manufact.
High reg. Union Individual* Low reg. Unknown Peak body Prof Constr’n Telco’ Transport Edu
industry industry services Notes: Individuals who donated more than $60,000 have been categorised by industry
Notes: Level of industry regulation derived from IBISWorld Industry Reports. if publicly available information showed they have financial interests in a given
*‘Individual’ refers to individuals with no known industry connections, or those who industry. The gambling industry’s share of gross value added shown is all of ‘Arts and
donated less than $60,000. If industry connections were known, individual donors were Recreation’, although gambling is only a subset of this.
categorised by industry. Non-union associated entities excluded. Sources: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC
Sources: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (ibid.)) and IBISWorld database.
(2018a)) and IBISWorld database.

3.4 Donations buy access and, perhaps, influence

Money in politics is regulated to overcome concerns about ‘buying’ Box 6: It’s tricky to regulate foreign donors
influence. But in Australia money can buy access, which researchers There is a risk that foreign actors might use political donations
argue is inseparable from influence.154 Political fundraising events to garner favour among Australian politicians. In a high-profile
explicitly sell access to senior politicians, and big donors are more likely case last year, Labor Senator Sam Dastyari was found to have
to get meetings with ministers. contradicted his own party’s policy on a matter of concern to the
Chinese Government, after taking payments from a Chinese
While it is difficult to draw a direct line between donations, access,
businessman.a It was later reported that he warned a wealthy
and policy influence, it is telling that donors themselves think personal
donor that his phone may be tapped.b Dastyari resigned from
interactions are important, and value opportunities to ‘bend the ear’155
parliament soon after.c
of politicians. Similarly, the fact that donations tend to ramp up during
policy debates and then fall away afterwards suggests that at least The episode led to a push for a ban on donations from foreign
some donors perceive a link between money and favourable policy actors. It’s a worthy aim, but the legislation proposed at the
outcomes. time would have had sweeping implications for third-party
campaigners,d and would not have prevented donations from the
3.4.1 ‘Pay for access’ fundraisers: buying a seat at the table individual involved in the Dastyari case anyway.e There were also
significant questions about who should ‘count’ as a foreign actor.f
The link between money and access is most explicit in political
fundraising events. As a senior ALP official reportedly said, “we use Australian democracy must be protected from foreign influence,
our political leadership to raise funds because they are the best product but a ban on foreign donations will always be limited. A broader
we have to sell”.156 suite of reforms (as proposed in Chapter 5) would capture
Associated entities that run fundraising events contribute a large substantial foreign influence (and any major donor influence)
amount of money to the major parties (Figure 3.6 on page 41). while sidestepping the problem of trying to define who counts as a
Attendees pay hundreds – and often thousands – of dollars for a seat foreign actor subject to a specific ban.
at a table with politicians, generally ministers or shadow ministers.157 a. Walker (2017).
b. Sweeney (2017).
Many donors openly say that they believe the benefits of attending c. Ibid.
fundraiser events include access to key decision makers and facilitating d. Twomey (2018).
policy discussion (Box 7). e. Or similar individuals who may be of concern (Twomey (2018)).
f. Tham and Anderson (2016).
154. Tham (2010).
155. As stated by one person who paid $10,000 to sit next to the then-Premier of
Victoria, John Brumby, at a fundraising dinner (Austin and Millar (2009)).
156. Tham (2010, p. 83).
157. Ibid. (pp. 81–87).

Box 7: Why attend a political fundraiser?
The recent Senate inquiry into political donations delved into the issues which affect our business” is necessary to “ensure that our
motives for attending fundraising dinners. Some attendees highlighted industry’s regulatory settings are fit for purpose”.c
the benefits of political access. For example, according to David Byers,
But many attendees denied that their attendance gave them a
chief executive at the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA):
favourable hearing on policy.
The MCA makes the political contributions detailed above because For instance, Mr Byers said the MCA has “no expectation of obtaining
they provide additional opportunities for the MCA to meet with
any direct benefit from attendance at [fundraising] functions”.d
members of parliament. The MCA uses these opportunities to
update members of parliament about conditions in the Australian Similarly, Annabelle Herd from Network Ten strongly denied that
minerals industry and the policy priorities of the MCA.a the company used political donations and attendance at events to
further a political agenda: At the events that we go to . . . you actually
Allan Blood, Chair of Latrobe Fertilisers, valued the opportunity to ‘bend don’t end up talking that much about your own political issues. It’s
the ear’ of the then Victorian Premier John Brumby at an event held by more about understanding what the environment is and just general
Progressive Business.b relationship-building and networking with other people that are at these
events. But, no, we certainly don’t rely on political donations to further
And Nine Entertainment Co. noted that attending policy briefings and
our policy or regulatory cause.e
network events provided “informative policy briefings and networking
events”. They noted that, being a heavily regulated industry, “regular Paul Marriott from Macquarie Bank said, “it’s about being part of the
interaction with members of parliament and policy makers to discuss conversation”, rather than expecting “preferential access”.f
a. MCA (2017).
b. Austin and Millar (2009).
c. Mclnally (2017).
d. Mr David Byers, Interim Chief Executive, Minerals Council of Australia, cited in Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (sec 3.73 2018).
e. Ms Annabelle Herd, Chief Operating Officer, Network Ten, cited in Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (sec 3.75 ibid.).
f. Mr Paul Marriott, Head of Corporate Communications, Macquarie Group, cited in Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (ibid.).

3.4.2 Large donations open ministerial doors Figure 3.6: ‘Pay-for-access’ events are lucrative fundraisers for political
parties
It’s not possible to know how often federal politicians meet with Donations from associated entities known to host fundraising events, 2015-16
donors, because they are not required to disclose who they meet with and 2016-17, $’000s
(Chapter 2). However, ministerial diaries from Queensland suggest 600
that big donors have a good chance of access to senior ministers ALP-aligned
(Figure 3.7 on the next page). 500
LNP-aligned
Half of the ALP’s major donors in Queensland secured a meeting with 400
the Premier, Deputy Premier or Treasurer.158 Donors who gave more
than $10,000 made up 15 per cent of all donors and contributed 70 per 300
cent of all donated funds. Donors that specialise in political advocacy
– peak bodies, professional services and lobbying firms – were most 200
likely to get a meeting. Donating unions got fewer meetings – but they
100
may get access through other avenues (Chapter 2).
In NSW, only a quarter of major donors to the party in power secured a 0

meeting with the Premier, Deputy Premier or Treasurer.159 A donations
cap applies in NSW,160 so the major donors (the top 15 per cent)
represented a smaller share of total donations (40 per cent).161 The
donations cap reduces the importance of any one donor, so this might Among the top 5% of donors
lead to less access for major donors. But the contrast may also be Notes: Unions and investment companies excluded, because their fundraising activities
appear to be different from those of other event-focused associated entities. ‘Prog.
partly explained by differences in the data. The NSW diaries do not
Bus.’ = Progressive Business. Top 5 per cent includes non-union associated entities,
include events, where about a fifth of the meetings with major donors in which contributed nearly 60 per cent of declared donations. Fundraising bodies
Queensland took place. The Queensland analysis period also included contributed 6 per cent of all party receipts.
Source: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC
158. Grattan analysis of all political donations to the ALP in Queensland from (2018a)).
January 2017 to March 2018, and diaries of senior ministers over the same
period (Queensland Government (2018)). Note this period included an election
(November 2017).
159. Grattan analysis of all political donations to the LNP in NSW in 2016-17 (the
most recent data available), and diaries of senior ministers from July 2016 to
September 2017 (NSW Government (2018)).
160. The cap is currently $6,300 for donations to a registered political party (NSW
Electoral Commission (2017a)).
161. The threshold for ‘major donors’ in NSW (top 15 per cent) was a donation of
$4,000.

an election, and donors may get more access in the lead-up to an Figure 3.7: Major donors provide a large share of funding and many get
election. access to a senior minister
80%
3.5 Donations increase when political heat rises, and fall away Major donor share of donations Proportion of major donors
when it cools who got a meeting
If supporting democracy were the only motive for making political QLD major donors
60% who only met
donations, we would expect to see donors contribute roughly consistent
Ministers at events
amounts over time. But for many donors this is not the case. NSW has a cap
on donations
Donations from gambling bodies shift with policy debates (Figure 3.8 on
40%
the following page). The spike in donations in 2010-11 came when the
Events are not
industry was campaigning against poker machine regulations proposed recorded in NSW
by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard in conjunction with Independent
Andrew Wilkie.162 Labor ultimately backed down, and soon after, 20%
donations dropped back to lower levels. The hotels lobby appears to
have used similar tactics in state elections (Appendix A).
There are many other examples of donations ramping up before a 0%

relevant policy decision and then dropping away when the political QLD NSW QLD NSW
environment for the industry is more benign: Note: ‘Major donor’ refers to the top 15 per cent of donors to the party in power in each
state, excluding donations to oneself ( i.e. an MP donating to their own party).
∙ Salary packaging industry associations donated $250,000 to Sources: For NSW: major donors to the state Liberal and Nationals parties (85 donors
who gave $4000 or more) in 2016-17 (NSWEC (2017)), and senior ministerial diaries
the Liberal Party and nothing to the Labor Party in the lead-up (Premier, Deputy Premier and Treasurer), July 2016 to September 2017 (NSW
to the 2013 federal election.163 Before the election, the Coalition Government (2018)). For Queensland: major donors to the state Labor Party (59
announced it would reintroduce tax breaks for novated leases. donors who gave more than $10,000, ECQ (2018)), and senior ministerial diaries,
At the 2016 election, Labor announced it would keep these tax January 2017 to March 2018 (Queensland Government (2018)).
breaks if elected. At that election, both parties declared $165,500
in donations and other receipts from the industry associations.164
162. ClubsNSW, the organisation leading the industry’s response to the changes, also
contributed “uncharacteristic and large” donations to the minister responsible
for repealing the laws after the change in government in 2013 (Livingstone and
Johnson (2017)).
163. AEC (2014).
164. AEC (2016); and Pascoe (2016).

∙ Political donations from the alcohol industry increase when Figure 3.8: Political contributions from the pokies industry peaked in
there are changes to the alcohol tax system. Wine and traditional 2011 when the heat was on
cider are taxed according to their wholesale price under a system Donations and other receipts from industry associations for hotels and clubs,
$’000
known as the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET), whereas other alcohol
1,000
products are taxed on the basis of their alcohol content. The Coalition
scheme favours large-scale wine producers and provides an Labor
incentive to produce large volumes of cheap wine. Southcorp, 800
a large wine producer, contributed $675,000 to the Coalition in
the lead-up to and immediately after the introduction of the WET
in 2000. Industry donations to the Coalition and the ALP fell in 600
the years following but rose again after the Henry tax review
concluded in 2010 that “current taxes on beer, wine and spirits are
400
incoherent” and suggested abolishing the WET.165
∙ A report on donations from the mining industry found that 200

contributions increase in line with the election cycle, shifts in
policy debates that affect the industry, and with project timelines.
Donations to the major parties peaked at nearly $4 million in 0
2010-11 – which encompassed the 2010 federal election and the 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Financial year ending
start of a heated national debate about the government’s proposed
Notes: ‘Industry associations’ include federal and state branches of the Hotels
mining tax (Chapter 4).166 Before 2008-09, donations from the Association and Clubs Australia (mainly ClubsNSW).
industry were evenly split between the Coalition and Labor, but Sources: Grattan analysis of party declarations to the AEC 2007-08 to 2016-17 (AEC
during the mining tax campaign and the ‘carbon tax election’ of (2018a)). See also Livingstone and Johnson (2017).
2013 funds were heavily skewed towards the Coalition.167 Since
then, the industry has donated a little over $1 million a year, more
evenly split between the Coalition and Labor.168
165. Grattan analysis of FARE (2018) and AEC (2018a).

166. Aulby (2017a); and Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations
(2018).
167. Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (2018).
168. Ibid.

These examples don’t establish a direct link between donations and Figure 3.9: Australia is behind other countries on regulating political
policy decisions, but at the very least they suggest some players donations
believe there is one. Rules for political parties
Canada UK NZ Australia
3.6 Existing checks and balances are insufficient Disclosure $202 $13,600 $13,500* $13,800
threshold
Commonwealth rules on political donations are weak. Most states have
stronger disclosure requirements than the Commonwealth does,169 and Aggregation Yes Yes Yes Not for parties
checks and balances on federal parties are soft compared to those in under the
place in other countries (Figure 3.9). threshold
Due dates Quarterly Weekly during Immediately Yearly

And the current regime promotes an ‘arms race’170 between the parties,
for during an election, for large
making them increasingly reliant on a small number of large donors. disclosure election, quarterly donations,
yearly otherwise yearly
Stronger disclosure requirements and better enforcement could go otherwise otherwise
a long way to improving the system at a federal level, and a cap on
Expenditure Yes Yes Yes No
political advertising expenditure would help reduce parties’ reliance on
caps
individual donors – and therefore their influence (Chapter 5).
Donations $1,600 No No No
caps
3.6.1 Voters are in the dark about who is donating to whom
Notes: * Donations between $1,350 and $13,500 are registered in NZ party returns, but
Disclosure of party (and associated entity) receipts is supposed to the identity of the donor is not disclosed. NZ donors are required to disclose donations
of $1,350 or more. Australian donors are required to keep track of their donations to
make party funding more transparent. But the public and the media parties and disclose when the sum of their donations equals more than $13,800. Party
have only a limited view of who is donating to whom. A lot of ‘hidden disclosures may take some time to be revealed to the public after lodgement with the
money’ flows to political parties – nearly $63 million in 2016-17.171 relevant electoral commission. Red text means Australian legislation is behind the rest.
Dollars in $AUD.
The disclosure threshold for party receipts is high and is indexed to Sources: Elections Canada (2018b), Elections NZ (2017) and UK Electoral
inflation. Parties are not required to aggregate donations from the Commission (2018c).
same donor towards the disclosure threshold, so it is possible to ‘split’
donations into smaller amounts that parties don’t have to disclose172
169. Chivers et al. (2018); and Muller (2017b).

170. Term used by Senator Dastyari (McDermott et al. (2016)).
171. And $91 million in 2015-16.
172. B. Edwards (2018). Donors are required to aggregate their own donations and
declare them separately to the AEC (Section 3.3 on page 33).

(although the ALP and the Greens both choose to disclose receipts Disclosures at a federal level are also not timely. Returns do not
below the threshold).173 have to be lodged until the end of the financial year, and they are not
published until the following February. Nineteen months can go by
The money that is declared is still sometimes difficult to trace back to before the public finds out who donated how much to whom.
its original source. Opaque entities174 donated nearly $3 million at the
last election.175 And associated entities tend to donate large sums, but Many states have stricter rules on disclosure and party funding than the
most of their funding comes from unknown sources (Appendix B).176 In Commonwealth Government. For instance, most states have a lower
some cases associated entities have passed on donations from banned disclosure threshold.181 Some have also banned donations from certain
donors to state party branches in the very states where those donors groups, instituted donations caps, and capped political expenditure.182
are banned.177 And several states are moving towards more timely disclosure. For
instance, NSW recently legislated for disclosure of donations every six
Many contributions are declared as ‘other receipts’ by parties, even months, and within 21 days during election campaigns.183 Queensland
though the contributors report them as ‘donations’.178 Large sums paid was the first state in Australia to hold an election with ‘real time’
to attend fundraising breakfasts, lunches or dinners are commonly disclosure in 2017,184 and South Australia followed soon after.185
counted in the ‘other receipt’ column on the basis that services –
such as a meal and access to politicians – are also provided.179 Yet
3.6.2 Sanctions are weak
fundraising events are, by definition, raising money for a political party,
so attendance should be considered a political donation.180 The Commonwealth donations regime has no teeth. Even the AEC,
the body responsible for administering the Electoral Act, has noted that
173. The ALP and the Greens have policies to disclose donations over $1,000 and
the regime combines “relatively low penalties” with “high thresholds for
$1,500 respectively. However, some branches of the ALP appear to use the
normal threshold instead. establishing an offence”.186 It’s rare for political actors to face serious
174. That is, trusts or corporations with no digital footprint and an address on their consequences for breaching the Act.
donor form that doesn’t correspond with commercial real estate.
175. $2.2 million in 2015-16 and $740,000 in 2016-17. The AEC conducts compliance reviews on annual returns by political
176. With the exception of investment vehicles such as the Cormack Foundation and parties and associated entities. Not all entities are reviewed – the
the 1973 Foundation, which declare most of their funding sources (Appendix B). AEC chooses which returns to examine based on a risk assessment,
177. ICAC (2016). This is illegal, but might be hard to pick up.
178. McGhee (2016).
professional judgement or random selection. Parties and associated
179. As discussed in Section 3.3, a donation is a ‘gift’. Any payment (or gift-in-kind) for entities are asked to amend their return if a mistake is found. If they fail
which something of equal worth is received in return does not fit this definition. to do so, the AEC can investigate the breach and refer the matter to the
So income from fundraising dinners is classified as an ‘other receipt’ because
the payments are in return for a service – a meal, an event, and an opportunity to 181. Muller (2017b).
meet with policy makers. This is not the case in NSW, Victoria or Queensland, 182. Ibid.
where payments for a fundraising event (over $200 in Queensland) are 183. NSWEC (2016).
considered donations and must be declared as such (NSW Electoral Commission 184. Blackwood (2017); and QLD Electoral Commission (2017).
(2017b), Queensland Electoral Commission (2018) and Electoral Act 2002 (Vic)). 185. Chivers et al. (2018).
180. B. Edwards (2018). 186. AEC (Attachment 11 2017a, p. 3).

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.187 No penalties have

resulted from a breach of the Act in the past decade.188
These measures are soft compared to the donations regime in

states such as NSW. The NSW Electoral Commission is required
to withhold public funding from political parties if they breach their
disclosure requirements. The amounts withheld can be large: the
Commission withheld $4.4 million for a particularly egregious case
of non-compliance in 2016.189 Penalties for individuals are also
very high in NSW. If a court finds a person has circumvented the
legislation, they could face 10 years in prison. Fines can be up to
$44,000 for misleading conduct, or $22,000 for repeated failure to lodge
a disclosure return.190
Weaknesses in the Commonwealth donations regime makes Australia

vulnerable to policy capture. Chapter 5 proposes ways to reduce this
vulnerability.
187. AEC (2017b).

188. As at 2016. A Senate inquiry on the regulation of associated entities questioned
whether the AEC “. . . has created a regulatory environment that encourages
proactive disclosure” (Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees
(2016)).
189. Statement by Chairperson, NSW Electoral Commission (2016). Funds are
returned when obligations are met, less any amount that the party received
through improper conduct. In this case, $3.8 million of public funding was
ultimately returned to the party in question and $600,000 was retained by
the NSWEC to offset the value of unlawful donations received by the party
(Statement by Chairperson, NSW Electoral Commission (ibid.)).
190. Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW) Part 10 Division 1.

4 Winning hearts and minds
Special interests do not seek influence only behind closed doors. – those with relatively little direct access to decision makers192 –
Increasingly they also try to influence the public debate. If you can campaigns are now used to complement direct influence through
capture the ‘hearts and minds’ of the public then policy makers usually lobbying and donating. As the policy agenda is increasingly set by a
follow. wider variety of interests, rather than the grass-roots of political parties,
‘going public’ may become increasingly important.193 Groups such
Public campaigns can take many forms, but include major advertising as GetUp! have emerged that seek influence almost entirely through
campaigns in mainstream media, targeted marginal-seat and social public campaigns and grassroots activism.194
media campaigns, commissioning economic consultants or think tanks
to publish work designed to influence the public debate, and direct There are two main channels of public influence: communication with
communication with the public by groups like pharmacies and schools. the public, directly, or via advertising and social media, and attracting
media coverage.
Interests have every right to argue their case in these ways. Public
campaigning is of concern only if claims are misleading or if pertinent
information – such as who is paying for modelling or research – is 4.1.1 The public campaign
withheld. Advertising campaigns are the most visible way special interests seek
to sway public sentiment. Campaigns can be persuasive (building
But the success some interests have had translating their claims
support for policy change) or defensive (highlighting the costs or risks
into uncritical press coverage raises questions about balance. Is the
of changing the status quo).
point of view of groups that aren’t so organised or well-funded, such
as consumers or young people, adequately represented in public Major advertising campaigns in mainstream media are expensive.
debates? Nonetheless, since the mining industry campaign against the Resource
Super Profits Tax (Box 8) was seen to be successful, threats of a
4.1 The hearts and minds toolbox ‘mining tax-style campaign’ have become standard operating procedure
for well-resourced groups fighting policy battles (Box 9).
The new paradigm is one of public contest through the popular media
more so than rational, considered development and implementation.191
192. Ward (2009).
Public campaigns or publicity for a policy ‘cause’ are now a standard 193. Ward (ibid.) and Box 1.
part of the influence toolbox. Once seen as the province of outsiders 194. GetUp! employs a range of grassroot and public campaign strategies including
encouraging members to email or call their elected representatives, sign petitions,
attend rallies, and contribute towards media and advertising campaigns (GetUp!
191. Mitchell Hooke, former head of the Minerals Council of Australia, quoted in Orr (2018a)). Their campaigns are usually ideological, rather than linked to the
and Gauja (2014). material interests of their supporters.

Merely foreshadowing a big-spending campaign can bring governments spenders in the past decade (Figure 4.1). Indeed, the 15 biggest-
to the negotiating table. The mining industry spent only an estimated spending groups account for 88 per cent of authorised advertising
$22 million of its reported $100 million advertising budget (Box 8).195 expenditure over the past 11 years.202 In most instances, a single policy
Similarly, the successful campaign by ClubsNSW against the 2011 issue precipitated these campaigns – the most advertising dollars were
pokies reforms used just $3.4 million of its announced $40 million spent on WorkChoices, the mining tax, plain packaging of cigarettes,
budget.196 and the carbon tax.
Of course, heavy spending by vested interests can also generate a Social media also plays an important role in contemporary advocacy.
response in kind by the government (Box 8). Despite many attempts Although it is widely seen as a way for smaller groups to highlight
to curtail government advertising, the Commonwealth Government issues, international research suggests that well-resourced groups
has spent at least $100 million a year in advertising over the past six have a much broader and more active social media presence than
financial years.197 smaller advocacy groups.203
Interest groups and issue movements are becoming more sophisticated 4.1.2 Sympathetic media coverage
in their public campaigning. GetUp! campaigned on climate change
and multi-national tax avoidance in the 2016 election using candidate Generating media coverage is another way to persuade the public and
forums, door-knocking programs, community phone banks, and influence decision-makers. Issues canvassed in the media are more
television and print advertising.198 It also ran targeted campaigns in likely to grab the attention of policy makers.204 ‘Going public’ can also
the seats of some Coalition MPs,199 leading to protests that it should enhance the leverage of an interest group in their lobbying behind
be classified as an associated entity of Labor or the Greens.200 A few closed doors.205
industry special interest groups that interact directly with the public –
But to get the coverage they want, groups have to get past the ‘gate-
such as pharmacists, pathology companies and schools – can also
keepers’ – editors and journalists have to be persuaded to cover the
threaten to lobby the public directly.201
story, present a particular angle, or frame the issue in favourable terms.
Large national campaigns are necessarily the preserve of well-
One way of doing this is to create the story. New research or modelling
resourced organisations in terms of both money and ‘people power’:
work about a contested policy almost always gets some coverage.
unions, industry peak bodies and GetUp! stand out as the major
Consultants can be called on to produce numbers on almost anything
195. Carbonell (2010). 202. Expenditure by national bodies includes expenditure by associated local or state
196. Panichi (2013). entities, 2006-07 to 2016-2017. Authorised advertising expenditure refers to all
197. Department of Finance (2017). declared expenditure on print or broadcast advertising which is required by law to
198. GetUp! (2018b). be authorised (AEC (2018d)).
199. Vromen (2016). 203. Van der Graaf et al. (2016).
200. Norington (2018). 204. e.g. McCombs and Shaw (1972), Yanovitzky (2002) and Nisbet and Huge (2006).
201. Knott (2015). 205. Ward (2009).

Box 8: The making of a campaign: the mining industry campaign against the Resource Super Profits Tax
In 2010, the Rudd Government announced a new Resource Super Labor MPs looking ahead to that year’s election were reportedly
Profits Tax (RSPT). In line with a recommendation from the Henry concerned by the MCA’s campaign, despite little observable reduction
tax review, the government proposed a 40 per cent tax on all mining in public support for the tax. By the end of June, Julia Gillard had
company returns above the government bond rate. replaced Kevin Rudd as prime minister, and the government and the
MCA ended their advertising campaigns.
The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) immediately initiated a public
advertising campaign against the tax, based on focus group research Following negotiations with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, Gillard
commissioned by BHP Billiton.a The campaign was launched on agreed to lower the tax’s headline rate and limit its scope. On July
May 7, backed by a reported $100 million war chest, and focused 2, Gillard announced the renamed Minerals Resource Rent Tax
on the economic risks of taxing companies seen to have saved (MRRT) would replace the RSPT. At the time, it was estimated that
Australia’s economy from recession during the global financial crisis. these changes would cost the government $60 billion in revenue over
At the same time, executives at BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata ten years.d Smaller mining companies that were not represented in
publicly threatened to cancel future Australian operations if the tax was negotiations continued to lobby against the tax.e
implemented.b
The Coalition went to the 2010 and 2013 elections promising to ‘axe’
An initial round of negotiations on the design of the tax failed. The the MRRT. It was repealed by the Coalition Government in September
government then announced that it would launch its own $38 million 2014.
advertising campaign to counter the MCA’s message.c
Since the MCA’s success, organised interests in the energy, banking,
In the event, neither the mining industry nor the government fully spent property, and automotive industries have publicly threatened to launch
their mammoth budgets. In total, the MCA and its allies spent $22 ‘mining tax-style’ campaigns in response to proposed policy reforms
million on advertising; the government spent $9 million. (Box 9).
a. Cleary (2011, p. 42).
b. Bell and Hindmoor (2014, p. 146).
c. McKnight and Hobbs (2013, p. 315).
d. Steel (2010).
e. Shanahan (2011).

– from the economic benefits of the Great Barrier Reef206 to women Figure 4.1: A handful of interests and issues dominate political
in leadership207 to universities.208 The mere fact of media coverage advertising by third parties
lends credibility. Politicians often refer in the public debate to research Top ten total group expenditures by financial year, $ millions
produced by special interests and cited in the media (Box 10 on 24
page 54). WorkChoices Mining tax Plain-packaging Carbon tax
Another tactic is to influence the way a story is told. It’s not surprising 18 GetUp! campaigns
on various issues
that interest groups tirelessly issue media releases and have
spokespeople at the ready for media soundbites. Some also helpfully
serve up ‘cameos’ – real people who would be negatively affected by a
12
proposed policy change – to give colour and human interest to a policy
story. This makes life easier for journalists who would otherwise have
to go searching for these stories. The debate about negative gearing
6
policy threw up some memorable examples of ‘real people’ found by –
or, perhaps, provided to – the media, including married nurses with four
negatively geared properties,209 and a plumber and a social worker who
had just purchased a negatively-geared property for their one-year-old 0
daughter.210
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17
Given the low price tag – at least compared to mass advertising Note: Expenditure by national bodies includes expenditure by associated state and
campaigns – targeted media content can be a cost-effective way to win local entities. MCA = Minerals Council of Australia.
hearts and minds. Source: Political expenditure returns, 2006-07 to 2016-17 (AEC (2018d)).
4.2 Why should we care?

Special interests are entitled to put their policy views to the public. In
many ways public campaigns are the antithesis of the behind-closed-
doors influence strategies documented in Chapters 2 and 3.
206. Fyffe et al. (2017).

207. Taliento and Madgavkar (2016).
208. Conlon et al. (2018).
209. Durkin and Bleby (2016).
210. Chang (2016).

The problem isn’t special interest efforts – unless they deliberately set
out to muddy the debate. The problem is that their messages are often Box 9: Empty threats? Industries reported to have threatened
covered uncritically, and other voices are absent. a ‘mining tax-style’ campaign
If media channels – both paid and unpaid – increasingly become a ∙ ‘The NCEC [National Catholic Education Office]. . . was
mouthpiece for the views of well-resourced interests, then an important reported to be planning a mining tax-style campaign.’ 2017
check on special interest influence over policy-making (Section 1.1.2 on campaign against changes to school funding arrangements
page 7) is substantially weakened. (Gonski 2.0)
∙ ‘Australia’s five largest banks are prepared to launch a mining

4.2.1 Media checks and balances can be weak tax-style ad campaign.’ 2017 campaign against new bank tax
The business model of traditional news media is under increasing ∙ ‘Crosby Textor had been engaged. . . to prepare a mining tax-
pressure. As the number of journalists – particularly specialist style campaign.’ 2017 campaign by the oil and gas industry
journalists211 – in some mainstream media outlets declines, the against possible changes to the petroleum resources rent tax
pressure to fill column inches and news bulletins grows.
∙ ‘Property groups are threatening a mining tax-style campaign
Special interests fill this void with new content, dial-a-quote and to head off changes.’ 2016 campaign against Labor’s
cameos, all with an eye to influencing the public debate. Ideally, proposed changes to negative gearing and the capital gains
journalists would analyse this unsolicited content critically and seek tax discount
alternative views. In reality, a lot of ‘public relations’ material put out by
∙ ‘The council had previously warned of a mining tax-style
businesses, government departments and advocacy groups runs with
industry campaign.’ 2014 Financial Services Council
very little editorial input from journalists (Figure 4.2). Although blindly
campaign against a decision to delay the increase in the
publishing ‘PR copy’ is not a new phenomenon, growing pressures on
Superannuation Guarantee
journalists mean it is likely to grow.
∙ ‘The association has threatened to launch a mining tax-
Even 20 years ago, most Australian journalists reported ‘very frequent’ style advertising campaign.’ 2014 Australian Automobile
contact from public relations people.212 Twenty per cent of journalists Association campaign against the increase in the fuel excise
reported that they ‘often or sometimes’ used public relations material
Source: Factiva search of Australian newspapers for ‘mining tax style’ 2011-2018
‘in full’.213 Australian Associated Press stories draw heavily on media
(Dow Jones (2018)).
211. MEAA (2018); and Bilyk et al. (2018).

212. Macnamara (1993).
213. Ibid.

releases from government departments and political offices, lending Figure 4.2: News stories are heavily influenced by lobbying handouts
legitimacy to them.214 Per cent of news stories driven by public relations materials (various
estimates)
This can favour powerful voices. International research shows groups 80%
such as trade unions and industry peak bodies gain much greater
media attention than citizen groups.215
60%
Uncritical reporting is more likely to occur in policy debates where the 60%
55%
issues are complex and technical. Modelling of economic impacts and
analysis of winners and losers can be difficult for journalists to ‘sense 47%
check’. And special interest conduct can compound this problem.
40%
When a large research report – or nothing more than a ‘media briefing
31%
pack’ – is provided only a short time before release, journalists have
little chance to test the numbers and spin.
20%
Special interests also frustrate proper media checks when they fail to
disclose who’s paying for research. Some argue that ‘who’s paying’
shouldn’t be relevant and that arguments should be judged on their
strengths.216 But consultants’ reports often depend significantly on 0%
Macnamara 1993 Zawawi 1994 Zawawi 2001 Crikey 2010
judgement and see the light of day only when they align with the clients’
Notes: Macnamara (1993) analysed 2,500 news articles and found 768 stories
interests. Given journalists (and even other experts) have limited
wholly or partly based on press releases from in-house public relations departments
capacity to pull apart black box models, knowing who’s paying is key and consultancies. Zawawi (1994) analysed 192 news articles and found 116 were
for the public to weigh up different results and arguments.217 influenced by public relations activity. Zawawi 2001 (reported in Macnamara (2002))
expanded on this work, analysing 683 news stories, of which 339 were found to be
Consultants sometimes refuse to reveal who commissioned their work directly the result of public relations activity. More recently Crikey (2010) analysed
(Box 10). And some experts and think tanks regularly weigh into policy 2,203 news stories of which 55 per cent drew heavily on public relations material and
24 per cent had ‘no significant extra perspective, source or content added by reporters’
debates without revealing who is paying.218 The ‘aura of independence’
whatsoever.
Sources: Macnamara (1993), Zawawi (1994), Crikey (2010) and Zawawi 2001,
214. Forde and Johnston (2013) showed that almost two-thirds of media releases reported in Macnamara (2002).
from four government departments and political offices were picked up by AAP
and distributed to newsrooms. Of that content, AAP used the material ‘wholly or
predominantly’ in nearly 40 per cent of stories.
215. Binderkrantz et al. (2017).
216. Cowan (2018).
217. Besley et al. (2017).
218. Seccombe (2018); and Barro (2018).

of a think tank or an academic means that their research is generally 4.2.2 Who speaks for the many in policy debates?
given more weight and prominence in the media than work explicitly
In our democratic system, representations from special interests and
commissioned by a lobby group (Box 11).
other interest groups inform policy and ultimately voter decisions. This
As a result, dodgy numbers and flawed arguments often get reported process works best when there are many interest groups seeking to
without critical review. Box 10 outlines two recent examples. Even influence policy and the public debate (Chapter 1).
when comprehensively debunked, misleading numbers can maintain
But lack of resources or poor organisation can leave many without a
a zombie-like presence in the national debate, cited again and again
strong voice. Diffuse groups, such as consumers, or young people,
even by key decision-makers who surely know better. The public
and the advocacy groups that represent them, are generally not
interest would be better served if dubious research findings were not
well-resourced and by their nature tend to be spread across many
given oxygen by media gate-keepers in the first place.
issues.
Open public debate might be strengthened if government backed
Many politicians and the public service will try to work through broader
public-interest journalism. Good-quality public-interest journalism that
public interest considerations, aided by institutions within government
weighs different viewpoints can be an important check on the influence
such as the Productivity Commission as well as outside experts. But
of well-resourced groups. But government-backed journalism can easily
even with the best of intentions, the interests of these groups can be
become government-controlled media.
given insufficient weight by decision-makers and voters, especially if
Various studies have looked at ways government might support their voices are ‘drowned out’ by well-resourced, well-organised and
the public-interest function of the media.219 A recent Labor-chaired self-interested groups.
parliamentary committee recommended ensuring public broadcasters
If access is granted only to those that come knocking, then less
are adequately funded; extending tax-deductible (deductible gift
organised and less well-resourced interests won’t be consulted.
recipient) status to donations to not-for-profit news media organisations
Research suggests that when legislative committees actively seek
(and possibly even to all news media subscriptions); and reviewing
out and invite contributions, they get a greater variety of relevant
defamation laws and whistle-blower and shield law protections.220 A
perspectives.222
significant number of other countries already provide direct subsidies or
tax exemptions to media outlets.221 There is no simple policy solution to this problem. Chapter 5 explores
ways in which policy processes can become more open to a diverse
Assessing the merits of these types of interventions is beyond the
range of voices, as well as ways that government can seek directly to
scope of this report. But it seems clear that, without some government
boost voices of those from diffuse groups.
intervention, the media’s capacity to check undue influence will only get
weaker.
219. Schweizer et al. (2014); and Bilyk et al. (2018).
220. Bilyk et al. (2018).
221. JERAA (2017). 222. Pedersen et al. (2013). See also Bishop and Davis (2002).

Box 10: Economic modelling in the media: two case studies
1. Impact of negative gearing on the economy and rents 2. Jobs created by the Adani coal mine
‘$19bn hit in Labor negative gearing strike on investors: report’ a ‘Adani will create more than 10,000 jobs. Here’s how’ f
In 2016 Labor proposed reforms to negative gearing and capital gains In 2017, during an intense public debate about the future of the
tax concessions. Property consulting firm BIS Shrapnel released a proposed Adani mine and what government support (if any) it should
report later that year estimating that removing negative gearing tax receive, an estimate by economic consultants GHD that the mine could
concessions for existing but not new properties (similar to elements create 10,000 jobs by 2030g gained wide publicity.
of Labor’s policy) would increase rents by 10 per cent and shrink
cumulative GDP by up to $190 billion over ten years. BIS Shrapnel The estimates had already been described as much too high by Adani’s
would not say who commissioned the modelling. Several weeks later own expert economist in the land court.h And an economist for the
the mystery client was revealed to be accounting firm Bongiorno and Australia Institute had produced a detailed critique of the assumptions,
Partners. the modelling methodologyi and subsequent attempts by the mine’s
supporters to massage the 10,000 figure.j
At the time, Grattan Institute and others showed why the estimates
were nonsensical and based on highly questionable assumptions.b Nonetheless, the 10,000 jobs figure was used by Adani in an
These flaws were also highlighted in a number of media reportsc and advertising campaign and quoted by the Queensland Government and
in a Media Watch story.d the federal Minister for Resources, Matt Canavan.k
Nonetheless, the BIS Shrapnel work was quoted widely and

approvingly by then Treasurer Scott Morrisone even after it had been
comprehensively discredited.
Notes: (a) Maher (2018), The Australian, 3 March 2016 (page 1); (b) Daley and Notes: (f) McCarthy (2017), The Courier Mail, 6 June 2017; (g) GHD (Table 9 2013,
D. Wood (2016) and Denniss (2016); (c) Martin (2016); (d) Media Watch (2016); p. 30); (h) Robertson (2015); (i) Campbell (2015a); (j) Campbell (2015b); (k) Canavan
(e) Morrison (2016) and Morrison (2017). (2016) and Lynham (2015).

Box 11: Think tanks can provide ‘respectable cover’ for

special interest advocacy
Thinks tanks are prominent in many policy debates. Think tanks,
including Grattan Institute, conduct research, lobby policy makers
and provide media commentary on policy.
Research from think tanks is not always independent or academic

in nature. The first question voters and policy makers should ask
is: ‘who’s paying’?a But many Australian think tanks – including
the Australia Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies, the
Institute of Public Affairs and the McKell Institute – do not reveal
their major donors.b
When a think tank gets most of its money from a small number
of donors or industries, the boundaries between ‘think tank’ and
‘lobby group’ can become fuzzy.c The risk is that such groups
become merely a respectable PR arm for their major funders, or
closer to the fake think tanks that proliferate in the USd and UK.e
a. Daley (2017).
b. Media Watch (2013). The websites of these groups have no information
about their major donors. Grattan Institute discloses its funding on its
website (https://grattan.edu.au/about-us/).
c. Media Watch (ibid.). For example, it was recently revealed that a single
donor – Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting – accounted for between
half and one-third of the Institute of Public Affairs’ total revenue in 2015-16
and 2016-17. Rinehart’s contributions were only revealed as part of an
unrelated legal case (Seccombe (2018)).
d. Dinan and Miller (2007).
e. Bruckner (2017).

5 Proposals for reform
Australia’s democracy is robust and good policymaking often prevails, The changes we propose focus on transparency, accountability and
but policy making is sometimes vulnerable to capture by special interest boosting alternative voices in policy debates. They will not fix every
groups. problem. But properly implemented they are ‘low regret’ and very likely
to help drive improvements in culture and decision making.
Access matters, and it is sometimes ‘for sale’. Political parties are
highly reliant on a small number of donors for their funding. State-level 5.1 Improve transparency in policy making
data suggests many large donors get access to senior ministers. And
groups seeking influence can explicitly buy access through fundraising Growing public cynicism about special-interest influence is partly born
events or by hiring well-connected former politicians or staffers (or of secrecy. When people can’t see what’s going on they assume those
engaging lobbying firms that do). with the most money or the best contacts are getting a ‘special deal’
from policy makers. This cynicism may be justified: what we can see
And while undue influence never comes with a ‘smoking gun’, this suggests that well-resourced and well-connected interest groups get
report documents numerous examples where influence campaigns more access and decisions often go their way.
– some combination of donations, lobbying and advertising – have We recommend three key reforms to improve transparency: improving
resulted in policy decisions that benefit a narrow set of interests, often the ‘visibility’ of political donations; publishing ministerial diaries; and
at the expense of consumers, taxpayers and future citizens. While it creating a more meaningful register of lobbyists. These reforms would
may not be frequent, just ‘sometimes’ is not good enough. substantially reduce the secrecy around money and access.
Special interests are less constrained than they might be. Contributions The OECD argues “a sound framework for transparency in lobbying
to political parties are often not disclosed at all, or long after the event. is crucial to safeguard the integrity of the public decision-making
Most lobbyists are unregistered, and their activities are undisclosed process”.223 Greater public scrutiny might encourage policy makers to
and covered by regulations that are weak and seldom enforced. People seek out alternative voices or sources of funds. Or better scrutiny may
move between government jobs and special interests with few controls simply reassure the public that decision makers are getting on with their
that are also poorly enforced. Special interests can influence public jobs and consulting broadly on policy.
debate by buying advertising, using their membership to campaign, or
These recommendations will not create much additional administrative
using third parties without disclosing their involvement.
burden, since most of them work with systems already in place. Nor do
our proposals unduly impinge on privacy – outside of security matters,
Reducing the capacity of special interests to control policy is important.
it is difficult to think of instances where an official meeting between
But policy design matters: there is a risk of undesirable consequences
a third-party and a politician should not be on the public record. Our
if reforms shift the distribution of political power and entrench the
influence of insiders. 223. OECD (2013).

proposal would make more donors visible, but only those who give
Box 12: Transparency isn’t a silver bullet but it helps
substantial sums well beyond the means of average Australians.
Whether transparency alone can improve policy making
Transparency isn’t a silver bullet but it can play an important role in and reduce corruption is unclear.a Evidence from the US
reducing the sway of special interests (Box 12). suggests campaign finance reforms don’t change the rate of
public corruption cases,b but they do correlate with increased
5.1.1 Publish ministerial diaries redistributive spending,c which suggests they may weaken the
Access and influence are inextricably linked, so it’s important the influence of the well-off.
Australian public can see who meets with senior policy makers. Journalists, political candidates and interest groups draw heavily
Ministerial offices at state and federal levels should publish details of on lobbying disclosures in the US.d One review of lobbying
all official meetings, including meetings held in the office, those held regulation concluded that public disclosure of lobbying activity
offsite, scheduled phone calls, and events where a minister attends in seems to encourage restraint and professionalism in dealings
an official capacity.224 ‘Official meetings’ should include those at which between lobbyists and politicians.e Lobbyists and legislators both
a minister was present as well as those held with ministerial advisers agree that transparency can help alleviate actual or perceived
only. Records of meetings should identify those present and key issues problems of inappropriate influence peddling.f
discussed.
There is much debate about whether increased transparency
To be useful, ministerial diaries must be published in a timely manner strengthens trust in government.g Whether transparency builds
and an accessible form. For example, all meetings for one month could trust depends partly on what it reveals. But in the longer-term it
be published by the end of the following month, as already happens in provides an important signal to governments about what the public
Queensland. The publication should be searchable and exportable, to wants and expects of them.
enable scrutiny.
Transparency is not enough on its own – strong voices are
Published diaries would enable journalists and others to see who still needed to call-out problems, and voters still need to hold
ministers are meeting – and, perhaps even more importantly, who elected officials to account. But transparency gives them better
they’re not meeting. When a ban on greyhound racing was announced information to do so.
in NSW, senior ministers met with the racing industry but not animal
Notes: (a) Evaluation is difficult because it is virtually impossible to isolate the
rights groups or supporters before deciding to overturn the ban
effect of specific reforms (C. S. Thomas (1998)); (b) Cordis and Milyo (2013);
(Appendix A). The NSW Planning Minister has been criticised for (c) Flavin (2015); (d) C. S. Thomas (1998); (e) C. S. Thomas (ibid.); (f) OECD
meeting frequently with property developers but not residents.225 And (2013); (g) Some argue it creates a culture of openness that strengthens trust,
while others argue it creates uncertainty and confusion among voters (see
224. Queensland, NSW and the ACT already publish ministerial diaries, but Grimmelikhuijsen et al. (2013)).
could improve the content and accessibility of this information as per our
recommendations in this section.
225. Jewell (2017).

the Queensland Government faced pressure in the 2017 state election Orange passes are granted to people who require ‘significant and
campaign when it was revealed the Premier had held many meetings regular business access’ to politicians, which includes the most active
with Adani and its lobbyists but not with environment groups or others commercial and in-house lobbyists. Lobbyists who do not have orange
concerned about the mine.226 This type of public scrutiny creates passes would not be required to register.
pressure for decision makers to think more actively about who they
consult. Former MP Jacqui Lambie (who proposed this policy in 2017) called
these passes “the backstage tickets of the lobbying class”.228 Taking
Some may try to avoid disclosure by shifting meetings to those not their privileged access away would make lobbyists’ jobs harder,
covered by reporting requirements (backbenchers or party officials so lobbyists would have an incentive to comply with the code of
for example) or attempting to influence more informally. But these conduct.229
avenues are less likely to be influential. Reporting cannot be perfectly
comprehensive without becoming excessively burdensome, so we The burden to register as a lobbyist should be negligible. Orange pass-
recommend focusing disclosure requirements on the most senior holders would simply need to declare who they are lobbying for and the
policy makers – ministers and their advisers. There seems to be little portfolio areas they are lobbying in, as part of the existing application
downside – the NSW and Queensland governments have done this process.
with no evident problems.
Some people who hold orange passes may not consider themselves
Federal ministers and assistant ministers already sign up to a code lobbyists – for example, academics or other experts that politicians
of conduct which requires that they “ensure that their conduct, might regularly consult. But these people are key influencers
representations and decisions as ministers . . . are open to public nonetheless. There should be no opprobrium for being listed as a
scrutiny and explanation”.227 Publishing ministerial diaries would help pass-holder, and the restrictions that would be extended to apply to
to keep this promise. them under the code of conduct – such as not engaging in corrupt or
misleading behaviour – would not unduly constrain their activities.
5.1.2 Link the lobbyists register to orange passes
This new definition would not capture lobbying outside of Parliament
The Australian Government Lobbyists Register is ineffective in its House. Nor would it capture those groups or individuals who lobby only
current form. Its definition of ‘lobbyist’ is too narrow, there is little occasionally. But anyone who meets with ministers would be identified
incentive to comply, and it relies on politicians to police it (Chapter 2). in published ministerial diaries (Section 5.1.1), wherever they might
The register should instead be linked to the sponsored security passes meet and whether or not they hold an orange pass.
that give holders unescorted access to Parliament House.
228. Lambie (2017a); and Lambie (2017b).
Linking the register of lobbyists to sponsored (‘orange’) passes would 229. An orange pass allows unescorted passage through the private areas of
broaden the definition of lobbyist without making it unmanageable. Parliament House. Without a pass, lobbyists can still meet with parliamentarians
but need to be escorted to each meeting and then back to the public areas. This
226. Long (2017a); West (2017b); and Ludlow (2017). makes meetings more cumbersome and takes away the ‘chance encounters’ in
227. Australian Government (2018b). common areas such as coffee shops in the private section of Parliament House.

The Department of Parliamentary Services, which manages access still protect the privacy of small donors and minimise the red tape
to Parliament House, has previously refused to publish a list of names associated with handling smaller donations.234 For bigger donations,
or organisations that hold these passes on security grounds.230 But the public’s right to know about political funding should trump privacy
these security risks are manageable: the UK, US and New Zealand, for considerations.
instance, already publish lists of pass-holders.231
Private funding above the threshold should also be itemised into
meaningful categories. Income from fundraising events should be
5.1.3 Improve the visibility of political donations
categorised separately from ‘other receipts’. Loans should also be
The federal disclosure regime for political donations leaves the public in separated from ‘other receipts’, and the terms and conditions of the
the dark about a sizeable share of party funding (Chapter 3). But some loan should be reported. And public funding should also be declared
simple changes would make large donations much more visible. in its own category, rather than being mixed into the ‘other receipts’
bucket.
To prevent ‘donations splitting’, donations from the same donor to the
same party, over say $100,232 should be aggregated and disclosed by Party funding disclosures should be available much sooner. NSW
the party once the combined total exceeds the disclosure threshold. recently legislated for reportable donations to be made public within 21
days during an election, and every six months otherwise. Queensland
The disclosure threshold should be lowered. At $13,800 the current now requires disclosures in ‘real time’. It beggars belief that donations
figure is well above the amount that an ordinary Australian voter could could not be disclosed in a similarly timely manner at the federal level.
afford to contribute to support a political cause. The high threshold
also means that income from fundraising events is often not disclosed. On their own, however, stricter disclosure measures will not
Associated entities that are known to run these events declare automatically translate into improved transparency. To be useful,
remarkably little about the sources of their funding (Appendix B). the information must be readily accessible. There are thousands
of lines of data in the AEC disclosures, and the information is hard
A more reasonable threshold would be $5,000.233 Donations below to sort and categorise.235 To address this, the AEC should release
this level are unlikely to lead to influence. And such a threshold would summary documents at the end of a disclosure period, as occurs in
some states and overseas.236 The online portal for lodging disclosures
230. In a Senate Estimates hearing, the President of the Senate said “if we start
releasing names of everyone who has a pass to Parliament House, apart from should validate donor names, to discourage abbreviations and spelling
the obvious ones, being senators and members, they are prone then to have their mistakes in the data.237 Donor organisations should be required to
pass stolen or prone to be followed” (DPS (2017)).
231. Summers (2018). 234. The same threshold would apply to associated entity disclosures. It should apply
232. It would be burdensome to include very small donations (such as the purchase of to donations, event attendance fees and membership fees, to ensure the income
raffle tickets) in aggregation requirements. of different associated entities is treated equally (Appendix B).
233. Thresholds for disclosure of donations vary widely between countries, for 235. B. Edwards (2017).
example political parties disclose donations over about AU$200-300 in Canada 236. The Electoral Commission (UK) (2018).
and the US, and over $1,500 in New Zealand, meanwhile the threshold in the UK 237. The online disclosure software used in Queensland and South Australia has
is closer to Australia’s (Filer et al. (2016)). systems in place to achieve this.

provide their ABN or ACN. The AEC should also be responsible for While these standards have the right intentions, they are not
tidying up the disclosures before they are released, so that journalists independently administered, and are only enforced at the discretion
and the public can more readily use the data. of the Prime Minister.244
And unlike ministers, federal MPs outside the ministry do not have to
5.2 Strengthen accountability of policy makers
commit to any code of conduct. They can accept gifts and engage in
Parliamentarians, and especially ministers, lead policy making and outside employment, so long as they declare them.245 This falls short of
“occupy positions of great responsibility and public trust”.238 The public the standards set for many state parliamentarians, all federal ministerial
is clearly concerned about the standard of ethical conduct of politicians, staff246 and federal public servants.247
even if corrupt conduct is rare (Chapter 1).239 Ultimately, politicians
are accountable to their electorates, but this is a blunt mechanism for Sponsored travel, sizeable gifts248 and other income249 may, or
deterring unethical or grey conduct.240 may appear to, influence decision-making in current or future roles
(Section 2.4). For example, Senator Sam Dastyari did not breach any
rules or code when he asked an education company with links to the
5.2.1 Set clear standards to avoid conflicts of interest
Chinese Government and a major property developer to pay bills for
Ministers are subject to a code of conduct known as the Statement him.250 Yet the outrage that followed shows the rules fall well short of
of Ministerial Standards. The Standards specify rules on contact with public expectations.251
lobbyists, restrict the acceptance of gifts241 and outside employment,242
and declare, among other things, that ministers must act in the public 244. Ministers must resign if they are convicted of a criminal offence or if the Prime
interest: When taking decisions in or in connection with their official Minister finds that they have breached the standards in a substantive and
capacity, ministers must do so in terms of advancing the public interest material way (Australian Government (ibid.) clauses 7.1 and 7.2, and Ng (2016)).
– that is, based on their best judgment of what will advance the 245. Parliamentarians are expected to register potential conflicts of interest, including
gifts, sponsored travel, and other sources of income (Registrar of Members’
common good of the people of Australia.243 Interests (2018) and Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests (2018)).
246. Special Minister Of State (2018).
238. Australian Government (2018b). 247. The APS Code of Conduct restricts acceptance of gifts and allows outside
239. See also Coghill et al. (2008a). employment only where it does not conflict with official duties: Australian Public
240. Ibid. Service Commission (2017).
241. Ministers must declare and surrender gifts over $300 in value from private 248. Gifts under $300 may be an appropriate exception to allow presentation and
sources (excluding hospitality) or purchase the gift themselves (Australian receipt of gifts as a gesture of “good manners, goodwill and the respect for other
Government (2018c)) and they are not allowed to accept sponsored overseas countries’ customs” (see Department of Finance 2017).
travel, unless approved by the Prime Minister (Ministerial and Parliamentary 249. Personal farms and family businesses may be an appropriate exception if they
Services (2017)). were established before the politician entered parliament and do not conflict with
242. Consulting, advising and day-to-day management of a business are not allowed, official duties.
but ministers can continue to hold shares and receive royalties (see Australian 250. Hunter (2016).
Government (2018b), clauses 2.19 and 2.20). 251. In resigning from the Labor frontbench, Dastyari said his action was “within the
243. Ibid. rules but it was wrong” (Patel (2016)).

Ethical behaviour can never be fully defined by rules, but clear stan- In NSW, the Electoral Commission is the independent regulator
dards around conflicts of interest are needed for all parliamentarians.252 of lobbyists, and can prosecute people for failing to register as a
A broad code of conduct for parliamentarians would help to set a lobbyist and for breaching the revolving-door ban.255 NSW has a
standard for the public, media and parliament itself to hold elected separate Parliamentary Ethics Adviser. In Queensland, the Integrity
officials to.253 Commissioner administers the lobbying and parliamentary codes of
conduct and has an advisory function only (i.e. does not investigate
breaches).
5.2.2 Codes of conduct should be independently administered
No such body exists at the federal level. The new Independent
All codes of conduct for ministers, lobbyists and ministerial staff – as
Parliamentary Expenses Authority could be extended to take on
well as any new code that might be developed for parliamentarians –
administration of the codes of conduct.256
should be independently administered. Arms-length administration of
the rules is necessary to build public confidence that codes of conduct For lobbyists, the sanction for non-compliance should be loss of
are respected and adhered to. privileged access to Parliament House via the orange passes
(Section 5.1.2) and/or a fine.257 This would provide a much stronger
An independent body should have an educative role, to help incentive for lobbyists to register and comply with the code of conduct.
parliamentarians, ministerial staff and lobbyists understand their It would also create an incentive for former ministers to comply with the
responsibilities and disclosure obligations.254 It should have the revolving-door ban.
authority to investigate potential non-compliance, and the power
to make findings and refer breaches when they occur. A separate For current MPs, breaches of the Ministerial Standards or any new
ethics adviser should be appointed, to enable current and former code for parliamentarians should be first dealt with by parliament.
parliamentarians to seek advice when they’re in doubt. Ideally parliament would refer all complaints for independent
investigation and agree an appropriate sanction when an independent
review determines a breach has occurred.258 This works well in some
252. There have been several proposals for a code of conduct for parliamentarians, houses of parliaments in Commonwealth countries where there is a
most recently rejected by the Senate Code of Conduct Inquiry (2012) on the strong culture of ethical conduct.259 Serious breaches that are not dealt
grounds that regulation should be developed to address specific concerns rather
than the more general aspiration of improving public confidence. The Inquiry 255. The maximum penalties are $22,000 for individual lobbyists who lobby while
found no evidence that codes contribute to improving public confidence (Senate unregistered, or for former ministers who lobby during the 18-month ‘cooling-off
Committee (2012)). period’ (Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011 (NSW, section 18.1)).
253. An example of such a code is the Queensland Parliament’s Code of Ethical 256. Brown et al. (2018) propose an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Standards, which is built on fundamental principles of: integrity of the Parliament; as an extension of the IPEA.
primacy of the public interest; independence of members; appropriate use of 257. Fines could be issued as infringement notices.
information; respect for people; and appropriate use of entitlements (Legislative 258. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (2016). A code of conduct established
Assembly Of Queensland (2018)). by a resolution of the House could specify that all complaints be referred for
254. It could even play a broader role in professional development, see Coghill et al. independent investigation.
(2008a) and Coghill et al. (2008b). 259. Coghill (2018).

with by parliament could be referred to the Commonwealth Director of demonstrating that the federal government is serious about managing
Public Prosecutions for possible prosecution, or to a new investigative conflicts of interest and identifying corruption risks.265
body for further investigation (Section 5.2.3). Penalties could be at
levels that apply to contempt of parliament.260 The commission would:
5.2.3 Establish a federal integrity or anti-corruption body 1. Take tips and information from the general public and public
officials (including whistle-blowers) on alleged corruption or
An independent commission responsible for investigating potential serious misconduct;
misconduct by politicians, their advisers and other public officials would
fill the gap in federal agencies’ powers and capabilities to investigate 2. Investigate potential misconduct and corruption risks; and
conflicts of interest and corruption.
3. Make findings of fact in relation to misconduct and refer
All states have dedicated integrity and/or anti-corruption agencies, but
any corrupt activity to the Commonwealth Director of Public
no equivalent agency exists at the Commonwealth level. It would be
Prosecutions.
naïve to assume that corruption at the federal level is less prevalent or
serious than at state level.261
Opponents argue such a body could be a risk to separation of powers
A recent review of Australia’s integrity system, led by Griffith (an executive agency playing a semi-judicial role) and that public
University, proposed several options to address gaps in the integrity hearings can unfairly ruin reputations.266 Assessing the optimal design
framework ranging from less to more comprehensive.262 Transparency of a federal integrity or anti-corruption body is beyond the scope of this
International Australia has advocated for the more comprehensive report. But it would be valuable if the federal government established
approach to anti-corruption reform.263 an independent review panel to consider issues and recommend an
appropriate model. The result may be an entirely new body, or an
A federal parliamentary integrity or anti-corruption commission has extension of powers for an existing body.267
strong public support264 and could help to build public confidence by
260. The punishments for contempt, which either house may apply, are set by the
1987 Act as fines of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations, and up 265. Easton (2018b).
to six months imprisonment for individuals (Parliament of Australia (2018)). 266. Merritt (2018).
261. Canberra Times (2018). 267. For example, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has
262. Brown et al. (2018). an Integrity Commissioner, but is currently limited to investigations in the law
263. Lillywhite (2018). enforcement arena. The Commonwealth Ombudsman already has investigative
264. 67 per cent support the establishment of such a body, even when told existing powers, but investigates complaints made against government departments
bodies may adequately fulfil the role. The support is even higher among those and agencies rather than the conduct of parliamentarians. The Public Service
who have worked in federal government. People do not necessarily believe Commissioner monitors compliance with the APS Values and Code of Conduct,
corruption is rampant, but value staying ahead of the game (Transparency but again its jurisdiction does not cover parliamentarians. See Appleby (2014)
International Australia (2018)). and Brown et al. (2018).

5.3 Level the playing field already have caps on political expenditure during election campaigns,
as does Tasmania’s Legislative Council. Most OECD countries have
Money and resources can be powerful tools of influence in policy
spending limits on political parties and/or candidates.269 And political
debates. The flip side is that diffuse and poorly resourced groups such
TV advertisements are banned in the UK.270
as consumers and young people can struggle to be heard. Good policy
depends on the best ideas prevailing, not simply the loudest voices. Advertising accounts for most campaign spending by the major parties
in Australia271 and is easier to identify and regulate than other political
We suggest two changes to reduce the influence of money on politics
expenditure.272 The argument against a cap is that it would restrict the
and to promote broader participation in the public debate: a cap
capacity of political parties and interest groups to communicate with
on political advertising expenditure during election campaigns, and
the public.273 But there is no reason to assume that the current level
changes to policy processes to boost countervailing voices.
of political advertising is the right one. Current spending is not based
We considered two other reforms: caps on private donations, and full on the amount required to communicate policy detail as much as the
public funding of election campaigns. We don’t recommend these. perceived imperative to outspend one’s opponent.274
Both have significant drawbacks, as discussed in Box 13. And their
The ‘arms race’ between parties results in growing amounts being
objectives can largely be met with fewer restrictions by a cap on
spent on political ads that are thin on factual content,275 are often
political advertising expenditure.
negative (i.e. attack opponents),276 and are sometimes misleading.277
5.3.1 Cap political advertising expenditure 269. OECD (2016).

270. Communications Act 2003 (UK). Parties are given airtime via party political
Political advertising expenditure during election campaigns should be broadcasts instead (UK Advertising Standards Authority (2014)).
capped. A cap would: 271. S. Young (2002). Print and broadcast advertising also represents most of the
political expenditure by third parties – 65 per cent on average and as much as
∙ reduce the imbalance between groups with different means to 90 per cent in some years (Grattan analysis of third-party political expenditure
broadcast political views; and 2006-07 to 2016-17, AEC (2018d)).
272. Focusing only on political advertising spend makes both compliance and
∙ limit the reliance of major political parties on individual donors. monitoring easier and helps to avoid unintended consequences seen elsewhere
(e.g. Sheila McKechnie Foundation (2018)).
273. Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters (2011).
The idea would be to limit political-party and third-party advertising 274. After the point that the parties have successfully communicated their policies to
during election campaigns, but not restrict political expression through the electorate, party expenditure in an election is a classic prisoner’s dilemma:
other channels, or at other times.268 NSW, South Australia and the ACT political parties would collectively be better off if they limited further campaign
expenditure, but each has an incentive to try and outspend the other – leaving the
268. The cap would apply to all paid-for electoral advertisements, including TV, radio, parties (and the polity) worse off.
newspaper, internet, social media advertising, bulk text messages and robocalls, 275. Reece (2016); and S. Young (2002).
for which authorisation is already required under the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and 276. Miskin and Grant (2004).
the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth). It would not apply to employees or 277. The prohibitions on false and misleading content in advertising set out in the
volunteers. Competition and Consumer Act 2010 do not apply to political advertising.

It is not obvious that Kevin O’Lemon278 or Mediscare added much to between well and poorly resourced third parties. There will always
Australian democracy.279 A limit on paid advertising may encourage the be substantial differences in the resources and capacity of political
major parties to use communication channels that are more conducive parties and interest groups to advertise their message, but a cap set
to deeper discussion and the interrogation of ideas, such as political at a reasonable level would place a ceiling on the imbalance.
debates and interviews.
Some design issues would need to be addressed: establishing
A cap on advertising expenditure would help reduce political parties’ the time period that a cap is in effect before an election,283 rules
reliance on major donors.280 If parties were obliged to spend less, each to prevent parties circumventing the limits284 (including the party
donor would become individually less important (because they could in government boosting taxpayer-funded advertisements), and
be replaced by other donors). And if parties had less incentive to sell determining appropriate penalties.285
access to donors, senior parliamentarians would have more time to do
their job instead of chasing dollars. The right cap depends on how much advertising reach money
can buy286 – it should be high enough to enable third parties to
Given that other groups, such as unions and industry peak bodies, communicate with voters on policy issues, but not so high as to enable
may campaign on political issues, their political advertising expenditure them to drown out all other voices, including political parties.
would also need to be capped. A higher cap should apply for political
parties – the primary players in an election – than for third parties.281 For example, a cap on political advertising expenditure of around
Entities owned by a political party should fall under the party’s cap.282 $5 million per annum for political parties,287 and around $1 million a
Expenditure caps would reduce the ‘spending gulf’ between the 283. For example, the cap could apply on a monthly pro-rata basis for the period
major incumbent parties and new and smaller parties, as well as beginning one year before the latest possible date for a half-Senate election and
ending on the actual election date. If the federal election is called early then the
Concerns about misleading content in political party advertising have led to cap may apply only for three months, whereas if the election is called on the last
several calls for reform (K. Burgess (2017) and Gartrell (2016)). possible date, then the cap would apply for a full 12 months.
278. Loughnane (2011). 284. For example, third parties should not be able to pool funds for a single advertising
279. Waller (2016). campaign, because this would encourage proliferation of third parties to
280. OECD (2016). get around the cap. But third parties should still be able to run separate
281. At the 2015 NSW state election, expenditure of the major parties was capped at advertising campaigns on similar issues. Expenditure caps do not appear to
$9.3 million (if they contested all 93 seats) and expenditure of third parties was have substantially increased the number of third-party campaigners operating
capped at $1.05 million (NSW Electoral Commission (2017c)). NSW recently in elections in NSW. There were 43 registered third-party campaigners when
legislated to reduce its cap on third parties to $500,000. Third parties should not NSW first implemented expenditure caps in the 2011 state election (EFANSW
be able to overwhelm public debate or “relegate the primary players in an election (2011)), and 52 in the following election in 2015 (EFANSW (2016)).
campaign – political parties and candidates seeking to win seats and possibly 285. Schott et al. (2014), Twomey (2014) and Joint Standing Committee On Electoral
form government – to second-tier status in terms of the volume and reach of Matters (2011) canvassed some of these issues.
campaigning” (AEC (2011a, pp. 6–7)). 286. Twomey (2015).
282. There is also a case for other groups (including unions) to come under the 287. A cap of $5 million represents about a fifth of the public funding for the major
relevant party’s cap if they engage in a coordinated campaign with a political parties at the 2016 federal election and three-quarters of the public funding
party (Tham (rec. 41 2012)). flowing to the Australian Greens. Estimates suggest the major parties each

year for third parties, would have significantly reduced advertising Figure 5.1: A $1 million cap would not affect many groups but would still
expenditure at the past four federal elections but would have affected significantly reduce advertising expenditure
only between five and eight interest groups (Figure 5.1).288 $1 Advertising expenditure by third parties in election years 2007-16, $ millions
million buys just under half the 2015 ‘Coal – it’s an amazing thing’ 40
Above $1 million
campaign,289 and $5 million is roughly what the major parties spent on Below $1 million
#5 #8 Number of
broadcast advertising alone in the 2016 election campaign.290 groups affected
30
Political parties should continue to declare their expenditure in full and
third parties should disclose significant political advertising expenditure
– say, above $100,000 – year-round, even though the cap would only #8
apply in the lead-up to an election.291 Current disclosure requirements 20
are more burdensome than what is proposed, but offer little value #5
because enforcement is limited.292
10
spent about $5 million on TV, press and radio advertising in the 2016 election
campaign; this does not include internet and social media advertising, Blumer 0
(2016). NSW currently has a cap of $11.4 million on political parties that contest 2007-08 2010-11 2013-14 2015-16
all 93 seats and $500,000 for third parties. But the NSW cap is broader than we Notes: ‘Advertising expenditure’ refers to all publication and broadcast advertising
propose, because it applies to almost all electoral expenditure (e.g. including which is required by law to be authorised. The groups affected in one or more
employee costs) (Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW)). election years are: the Alliance of Australian Retailers, the Association of Mining
288. Eight groups would have been affected at the 2016 election: the Australian and Exploration Companies, the Australian Automobile Association, the ACTU, the
Education Union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Minerals Council Australian Education Union, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Business Council
of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Nursing Federation, of Australia, the Focus on Australia Foundation, Forward Brisbane Leadership, GetUp!,
GetUp!, Universities Australia, and the Australian Automobile Association (AEC Imperial Tobacco Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Business
(2018d)). Action Fund, and Universities Australia.
289. Long (2017b). Source: Grattan analysis of political expenditure returns, 2007-08 to 2015-16, AEC
290. Blumer and Conifer (2016). (2018d).
291. Year-round disclosure would enable the level of caps to be reviewed over time to
ensure they are not unduly restrictive.
292. Currently third parties are expected to disclose all political expenditure over
$13,800, but substantial advertising campaigns have gone undisclosed (e.g.
The Property Council of Australia’s campaign to preserve negative gearing and
capital gains tax discounts) because of a lack of awareness and enforcement.
The current definition of ‘political expenditure’ also leaves room for interpretation
and has the potential to capture a large number of small organisations.

Box 13: Why not a donations cap or full public funding?
We do not recommend a cap on private donations, or full public funding Finally, donations caps may favour some political parties over
of election campaigns (effectively, a donations cap of zero), for these others. Caps on private donations but not on the affiliation fees
reasons: paid by some unions to the ALP would advantage Labor over other
parties (Appendix B).g But if affiliation fees were included, this would
First, full public funding is probably unconstitutional. While it might
disadvantage the ALP.
reduce potential for corruption, it would significantly burden the implied
freedom of political communication (Box 4).a A cap on donations is less If the intention is to reduce the influence of major donors, then a cap on
extreme than no private donations at all. Victoria and NSW both cap political advertising expenditure would have this effect, while avoiding
donations (currently at $4,000 and $6,300 respectively),b and while or reducing many of the problems listed above.
the NSW cap has survived constitutional challenge,c these restrictions
Notes: (a) It is not clear that banning small or moderate donations would improve
have further drawbacks. representative democracy or prevent corruption or undue influence (Schott et al. (2014,
p. 3)). (b) Electoral Act 2002 (Vic) and Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW). (c) McCloy
Restricting donations creates significant barriers to entry for new
v New South Wales. (d) Schott et al. (Ibid.). (e) Gauja (2014) and Rauch (2016). (f)
parties and could limit the ability of small parties to challenge Twomey (2018). (g) This is why the Coalition opposed Labor’s donations reforms in
incumbents.d Public funding levels depend on the number of votes Victoria (Willingham (2018)).
received, so new parties are particularly reliant on private donations
to get going.
Low donations caps can erode incentives for politicians to engage with
members and supporters, which could weaken links between parties
and their members that can themselves be a check on special interest
influence.e
Donations caps would also impose a regulatory burden on donors.
Donors would need to keep track of their payments to political parties,
know whether they are a donation or receipt, and be aware of when
they have reached the cap. In contrast, an expenditure cap puts the
regulatory burden on the parties. Recent challenges associated with
regulating foreign donors show how restricting the supply of donations
can easily result in unintended consequences (Box 6).f

5.3.2 Boost countervailing voices which are required for every policy proposal designed to introduce
or abolish regulation.296
The other way to get more open policy debate is to boost the voices of
under-represented groups. This is not always easy. Often groups are Some of our other recommendations – particularly publishing
poorly represented because they are poorly resourced and organised. ministerial diaries – will also create an incentive for greater input from
Yet citizen engagement is a core responsibility of politicians and public under-represented groups in the policy development process. Ministers
servants.293 and their advisers are more likely to seek out other voices if they know
One way to get better, more inclusive policy debates is to embrace that their consultation processes are on the public record.
policy review processes that actively seek out a range of voices. There But even with good policy and review processes – and the best
are a range of institutions and processes that already facilitate this. intentions of decision-makers – a view can’t be heard if there is no one
Governments should use them actively, and continue to make sure they to express it. This is a significant problem for diffuse groups, such as
have sufficient resources: consumers and young people.
∙ The Productivity Commission inquiry process is a best-practice In some cases, government agencies can provide countervailing
example of broad consultation. It requests input from groups on voices. The competition and consumer regulator, the ACCC,
all sides of a debate, publishes their submissions, holds public sometimes takes up the cause for consumers beyond its immediate
hearings to test the views of interested parties, publishes a draft charter of enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act. For example,
that includes recommendations, and then holds another round of ACCC Chair Rod Sims has very publicly berated state governments
consultation on the draft. The government is required to table the for structuring sales of public assets to maximise proceeds at the
Commission’s findings and respond to recommendations within 25 expense of competition and long-term consumer welfare.297 Similarly,
sitting days.294 the Essential Services Commission of Victoria, also a regulator, issued
one of the earliest warnings that retail electricity competition wasn’t
∙ The Senate and House committee hearing processes, while not
working so well.298
as exhaustive, also draw out views from a range of parties and put
them on the public record. Legislative committee hearings offer a The Harper Review of Competition Policy recognised a need for
timely opportunity to consult on and evaluate bills already under more consumer advocacy of this type. However, it concluded that
consideration by the parliament. the role of consumer advocate was an uneasy one for a regulator
tasked with enforcing the law.299 The Harper Review called for a new
∙ The Office of Best Practice Regulation within the Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet encourages the public service to 296. PM&C (2014).
consult broadly when preparing Regulation Impact Statements,295 297. Potter (2016); and Sims (2016).
298. Essential Services Commission (2013).
293. Holmes (2011); and Information And Privacy Commission NSW (2018). 299. Numerous submissions to the Harper Review argued that effective regulation
294. PC (2014). requires separation of policy design and implementation (Harper et al. (2015,
295. PM&C (2016). pp. 447–449)).

government agency, the Australian Council for Competition Policy, parliaments305 and online consultation hubs306 to seek views from the
whose responsibilities would include consumer advocacy.300 In the public.307 A consideration of these approaches is beyond the scope of
absence of such an agency, the ACCC and other regulators should this report, but a recognition that broad consultation can boost public
more systematically advocate for consumer interests. faith in decision-making processes308 means these sorts of approaches
are likely to become more common.
There is also a clear role for the ACCC in identifying policy changes
that could make markets work better for consumers. Parliament should 5.4 Conclusion
give the ACCC formal powers to initiate reviews into markets that
are not delivering for consumers, and to make recommendations to Australian political institutions are generally robust, but there is room
relevant governments on changes to regulation. In most comparable for improvement. At times, special interests have used the tools at
economies the regulator has these powers.301 From time to time the their disposal – donations, lobbying and public campaigns – to push
ACCC does undertake what it calls ‘market studies’,302 but without policy towards their interests at the expense of the public interest.
formal information-gathering powers, or any established process for Our recommendations seek to reduce the risks of this type of ‘policy
the government to respond to proposed changes to regulation, these capture’ while still protecting the rights of individuals and groups to
reviews are not as effective as they could be. contribute to policy discussions.
Ultimately it remains up to politicians and public officials to assess and

For other under-represented groups without an obvious publicly-funded
adjudicate the public interest. But better information can help them
advocate, government should continue to offer financial support –
in making those assessments and will enable the public, media and
especially to not-for-profit organisations that represent diffuse interests
parliament to hold them to account.
such as young people, older Australians, and people with a disability.303
The solutions we propose aren’t radical – they are in line with OECD
There are also more innovative ways to incorporate the views recommended practice.309 They could make a real difference to the
of ordinary Australians in policy making. Some state and local quality of public policy and boost the public’s confidence that the
governments and other groups have used citizens juries,304 people’s system is working for them.
300. Ibid. (pp. 452–454).

301. Ibid. (p. 447).
302. This is a relatively new development. The ACCC has done only three of these 305. For example, in NSW the Daily Telegraph organised a people’s parliament of
studies to date: into the cattle and beef sector, communications, and new car ordinary citizens and experts to debate priorities and legislative changes for the
retailing (ACCC (2018a)). NSW Government (Daily Telegraph (2011)).
303. Commonwealth and state and territory governments currently give financial 306. For example, the South Australian Government’s YourSAY.
support to a range of advocacy groups that represent interests that would 307. Holmes (2011); Information And Privacy Commission NSW (2018); and
otherwise have even less voice, including the Foundation for Young Australians, Department of Industry (2017).
the Council on the Ageing, and Disability Advocacy Network Australia. 308. Information And Privacy Commission NSW (2018).
304. For example, Melbourne City Council’s People’s Panel (Reece (2015b)). 309. OECD (2013); and OECD (2016).

Appendix A: Case studies of special interest influence
This appendix provides more details about the examples of special Other policy decisions specifically reduced the tax rate for the new
interest influence discussed in the report. casino,316 exempted the development from smoke-free laws,317 and
carved the area out of the CBD ‘lockout law’ zone.318
A.1 ‘Special deals’ for special interests
Catholic schools funding
Sydney casino licence
In March 2018, the Catholic schools lobby received a pledge from
In February 2012, James Packer proposed building a hotel-casino on federal Labor that they would be $250 million better off in the first
the Sydney Harbour foreshore at Barangaroo. The NSW premier and two years of a Labor Government and billions of dollars better off
opposition leader were quick to back the idea, saying it would bring jobs over a decade. The pledge has been criticised because it appears to
and tourists to Sydney.310 undermine the ‘Gonski’ ideal of a single, needs-based funding model
for all schools.
In August 2012, Packer personally pitched the project to Premier Barry
O’Farrell. Just a week later, a requirement for independent evaluation of Labor claims the pledge is part of its existing policy to increase
unsolicited proposals was removed.311 The general change may have funding for all schools.319 Indeed, the initial $250 million over two
been unrelated but it was an unfortunate coincidence. Two weeks after years seems to cover the funding gap between Labor’s 2016 election
that, Packer formally lodged his proposal. Packer hired former Labor commitment and the Coalition’s ‘Gonski 2.0’ funding model. But the
Senator Mark Arbib and former ALP National Secretary Karl Bitar to 2016 commitment was made under the old school funding model and
help secure Labor’s support.312 Labor is yet to explain how it would change the current needs-based
funding formula to allocate the billions promised. Eventually Labor will
The unsolicited proposal won the backing of the NSW Cabinet in
have to explain what parts of the formula are being changed to justify
October 2012, survived a late counter-bid by Star Casino in 2013,313
the extra dollars, and whether those changes are being consistently
and won final approval from the NSW Government in 2016.314 There
applied to independent and government schools.
was no competitive tender process.315
Whether or not this is a ‘special deal’, the timing is questionable. One
310. Campion and A. Wood (2012). week before the March 2018 Batman by-election, Bill Shorten wrote
311. Independent evaluation had previously been required before an unsolicited to Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart to offer an extra $250 million for
proposal could proceed without a tender process (Nicholls (2012)).
312. Patrick (2016); and Dowling (2013).
313. A steering committee chaired by David Murray was set up to compare the two 316. Saulwick (2013).
proposals (NSW Government (2013) and Saulwick (2013)). 317. Patrick (2016).
314. Raper and Glanville (2016). 318. Markham and M. Young (2015); and Bradley (2016).
315. Clennell and Lehmann (2013). 319. Savage (2018).

Catholic schools in the first two years of a Labor Government.320 In Transurban is the only entity that has been granted a toll road
the following week, the Catholic schools lobby made 30,000 robocalls concession in Australia on the basis of an unsolicited proposal to state
urging residents of Batman to vote for Labor.321 And the head of government since 1987.328
Catholic Education Melbourne, Stephen Elder, wrote a letter to all
Catholic school parents in Batman.322 Shorten personally called Elder The projects are worth billions to Transurban in increases or extensions
on the night of the by-election win to thank the sector for its support.323 of existing tolls and additional government funding. The West Gate
Tunnel project, for example, is expected to receive $2.6 billion in
The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission is now state government funding and a further $4 billion in financing from
investigating Catholic Education Melbourne’s political activities during Transurban.329 As part of the deal, Transurban negotiated an extension
the Batman by-election.324 on its CityLink tolling concession worth $20-$30 billion between 2035-
2047.330 These deals are lucrative for Transurban in the long term.
Transurban’s unsolicited proposals They protect the budget balances of governments in the short-term,
but they risk poorer outcomes for taxpayers and drivers compared to a
Toll road operator Transurban is building NorthConnex in NSW, the
competitive tender process.331
Logan Enhancement and Inner City Bypass upgrades in Brisbane, and
the West Gate Tunnel and CityLink upgrades in Victoria.325 All were
unsolicited proposals to government. Unsolicited proposals may throw A.2 Special interests with a ‘seat at the table’
up new ideas, but they also exclude competition since governments Medicines Australia’s involvement in pharmaceutical pricing
generally negotiate with the project proponent exclusively.326 These
deals avoided normal tender processes. Consumers and taxpayers pay a lot more for medicines in Australia
than in other countries.332 These inflated costs can be traced, at
Executives from Transurban met directly with both the NSW Premier least in part, to the influence of the pharmaceuticals industry over
and the Queensland Treasurer in 2017. The company is a client of pricing arrangements agreed under the Pharmaceuticals Benefits
a federal lobbying firm led by two former senior political advisers.327 Scheme (PBS).333 There are big dollars at stake. The government
spent $12 billion subsidising pharmaceuticals in 2016-17, and costs
320. McGowan (2018).
321. Benson (2018).
have been growing at more than 10 per cent per year.334 At least $500
322. Savage (2018).
323. Benson (2018). 328. ACCC (2018b).
324. Le Grand (2018). 329. J. Edwards (2017).
325. Transurban already controls 15 of the 19 toll roads in Australia, and the ACCC 330. The extension applies for 10-12 years from 2035, when Transurban’s current
has now raised concerns over its near monopoly on private highways in Australia tolling concession expires (Schneiders and Millar (2016b)).
(Schneiders and Millar (2016a), Ludlow (2018) and ACCC (2018b)). 331. Ludlow and Wiggins (2018).
326. Angus (2017). 332. PC (2015); and Duckett et al. (2013).
327. Grattan analysis of NSW and Queensland ministerial diaries (Queensland 333. Duckett et al. (2013); Duckett and Breadon (2015); Duckett and Banerjee
Government (2018) and NSW Government (2018)) and the Australian (2017); and PC (2015).
Government Lobbyists Register (PM&C (2018a)). 334. PBS Information Management Section (2017).

million a year could be saved by benchmarking drug prices to those of this influence is out in the open – the union movement is part of the
of comparable countries and having prices set by an independent ALP’s DNA – but on some issues union influence is more opaque and
authority.335 perhaps less clearly aligned with the interests of its members.
The industry is heavily involved in choosing the data and methods used Three separate independent inquiries have recommended more
to calculate price gaps on drugs (the gap between government subsidy independent directors be appointed to the boards of superannuation
and full price).336 A joint working group of the Health Department and funds.342 Yet the ALP opposes this. Unions currently appoint about
Medicines Australia – the peak body for the Australian pharmaceuticals a third of all directors on industry fund boards,343 so a requirement
industry – is described as ‘agreeing’ on and ‘determining’ how policy is for more independent directors would reduce the power of unions
designed and implemented.337 to choose directors. It would also be a direct hit to union finances,
because some directors’ fees are paid to the union that employs
One of Medicines Australia’s main objectives is “building and
them,344 and potentially an indirect hit to the ALP’s finances given
maintaining relationships with government for fair reimbursement of
unions are the party’s major donors.345 Large industry super funds
medicines (through the PBS) to ensure the continuation of a viable
on average outperform for-profit funds, but this does not mean their
medicines industry”.338 Medicines Australia is active in lobbying. It
governance cannot be improved.346
has an in-house government relations team,339 and is also a client of
four different commercial lobbying firms, three of which employ former
government representatives and advisers.340 The pharmaceuticals A.3 Blocking reforms that have broad support
industry has a substantial say in PBS policy. Other voices, particularly
those representing consumers, have considerably less input. Climate change policy
Australia’s response to climate change has been inconsistent and
Union influence on Labor’s superannuation policy lacking in direction for at least three decades.347 Opinion polls show
The Australian Labor Party emerged out of the trade union movement
and continues to have close ties to many unions. ALP-affiliated unions
342. The three major reviews span different governments: Cooper (2010), Murray
have substantial influence over party policy, accounting for half of
(2014), and the PC (2018). See Minifie (2015).
delegates at state conferences that determine policy and at least a 343. AFR (2017).
third of voting members at the party’s National Policy Forum.341 Some 344. Some commentators estimate that of the $22 million in directors’ fees paid to
industry super fund board directors in 2017 (APRA (2018)), up to $5 million was
335. Duckett and Banerjee (2017). paid directly to unions (Begg and Breheny (2017)) as compensation for the time
336. Duckett and Breadon (2015). that union officials spend representing unionised workers’ interests on super fund
337. Department Of Health (2014). boards.
338. Medicines Australia (2018a). 345. Unions contributed more than 40 per cent of all donations to the ALP in 2015-16
339. Medicines Australia (2018b). and 2016-17. AEC (2018a).
340. PM&C (2018a). 346. Minifie (2015).
341. ALP (2015). 347. Talberg et al. (2016).

support for action on climate change peaked in 2006, when 68 per cent mining sectors donated more than $1 million to the Liberal Party in
of Australians backed action ‘even if this involves significant costs’.348 2011-12 and 2012-13.354
In 2007, both major parties went to the federal election with plans to Since then, the policy paralysis appears to have been the result of
introduce an emissions trading scheme to combat climate change. But political and ideological divides rather than special-interest activism.355
after the election, the policy consensus was quickly derailed – partly by But the result is that in 2018 Australia still lacks a credible mechanism
political manoeuvring and partly by special interests. to achieve its Paris Agreement commitments.356
Small groups of carbon-intensive firms, who would inevitably suffer

most under a sound, national-interest policy proposal, were able A sugar tax
to lobby much more powerfully than large groups like taxpayers
Australia’s food and beverages industry has so far managed to keep
or consumers, and arguably changed the proposal into something
proposals for a sugary drinks tax off the table, despite public health
which better protects their special interests.349
benefits and popular support.357 The World Health Organisation
Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme failed to gain supports taxing sugary drinks to help reduce consumption of sugar.358
political support and was replaced by Julia Gillard’s Clean Energy In 2016, Grattan Institute recommended introducing a tax on sugar-
Futures package, which included a carbon price. The package passed sweetened beverages to fund the additional health and welfare
Parliament, but only with the inclusion of overly-generous subsidies expenses sugary drinks create.359 The Australian Medical Association
for emissions-intensive gas and coal industries added in response to also backs such a tax “as a matter of priority” and argues “progress
intense lobbying.350 should not be slowed by [the food industry’s] unwillingness”.360
The carbon price was repealed in 2014, to the delight of special In its 2016 annual report, the lobby group representing the non-
interests.351 Major lobby groups spent more than $300 million on alcoholic beverages industry stated that: The Beverages Council
advocacy between 2010 and 2014,352 including on an anti-carbon-tax devoted significant resources to keeping a tax off the policy table of
advertising campaign (Chapter 4).353 Companies in the energy and either the Government or Opposition, through direct engagement with
key politicians. Whilst the Greens have stated their support for a tax,
348. Lowy Institute (2018).
349. Pezzey et al. (2010).
which is very much a risk going forward, as an industry we should be
350. T. Wood and Edis (2011). APPEA’s 2011-12 annual report identifies some very pleased with the outcomes to date in this space.361
concessions it achieved: “APPEA continues to work to ensure that. . .
government climate change policy does not hinder the oil and gas sector’s 354. AEC (2013); and AEC (2012).
growth” (APPEA (2012)). 355. Butler (2017).
351. Pearson (2014); and Latimer (2014). 356. T. Wood (2017); and Griffiths (2017).
352. This is the total revenue of five minerals lobby groups: the Minerals Council 357. Essential (2018).
of Australia, the Australian Coal Association (now part of the MCA), the NSW 358. WHO (2015).
Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council, and the Australian 359. Duckett et al. (2016).
Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (Aulby (2017b)). 360. AMA (2018).
353. Lane (2011). 361. Australian Beverages Council (2016).

The food and beverages industry employs a range of lobbying The social costs loom large.372 In 2010, the Productivity Commission
strategies in Australia. It hires commercial lobbyists, donates to political found that features of poker machines, such as the ability to play
parties, develops relationships with policy makers and funds research alone, the fast pace, and the tendency for players to ‘zone-out’ while
to influence debate on public health policies.362 The major players – playing, increase the risk of gambling-related harm.373 It recommended
Coca-Cola, Nestle, McDonalds, Mars, Mondelez, and the Australian a national pre-commitment system to address these problems.374 In
Food and Grocery Council – all have in-house and commercial response, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie struck a deal with Julia
lobbyists.363 Research into the lobbying practices of some of these Gillard in 2010 to support her minority government in exchange for the
firms found that Coca-Cola and McDonalds target constituency building roll-out of a mandatory pre-commitment scheme.375
and being ‘part of the solution’, while Nestle and the Australian Food
and Grocery Council focus on framing the public debate, shaping the The idea was popular with voters at the time,376 but the policy soon
evidence base, and building relationships with policy makers.364 became a thorn in the side of the Gillard government.377 In 2011 and
2012, there was an organised effort to overturn the proposed reforms.
Sugar producers have also been vocal in opposing a sugary drinks tax, Clubs, hotels and other businesses that financially benefit from pokies
and politicians have been unwilling to take them on.365 The producers fought the reforms,378 exaggerated the impacts, and ramped up their
are a powerful group politically, because they are concentrated in political donations over the period (Figure 3.8 in Chapter 3).379 They
marginal seats in North Queensland.366 also ran a very effective advertising campaign.380
Pokies reforms Livingstone and Johnson (2018) say the industry’s strategic use of
donations may have convinced Labor that “the [poker machine] reforms
Australians lose more money on gambling than anyone else in the
world:367 the average Australian adult lost more than $1,000 gambling
372. $4.7 billion a year in 2010 (PC (2010, p. 48)). The net benefits of gambling
in 2016368 – 49 per cent higher than the next largest losers.369 Most (including tax revenue and consumer benefits) are positive, but the Productivity
gambling losses are due to poker machines,370 which are much more Commission found they could be much higher with more effective harm
common in Australian pubs and clubs than in other countries.371 minimisation policies (PC (ibid., p. 6.1)).
373. Ibid. (pp. 25–26).
362. Mialon et al. (2016). 374. PC (ibid., pp. 10.1–10.44). Pre-commitment lets players set spending limits
363. PM&C (2018a). before they play, which gives people the “capacity to control their future selves”.
364. Mialon et al. (2016). Spending limits should be binding for pre-commitment to be most effective (PC
365. Webster and Zonca (2016). (ibid., p. 27)).
366. Brissenden (2018). 375. M. Thomas (2016).
367. The Economist (2017). 376. ABC News (2018).
368. The Economist (ibid.). See also QGSO (2017, p. 5). 377. Livingstone and Johnson (2017).
369. Singaporeans. The Economist (2017). 378. Poker machine operators made $11 billion in profit in 2010-11, QGSO (2017,
370. About $600 per person annually (The Economist (ibid.) and QGSO (2017, p. 5)). p. 145). Problem gamblers account for about 40 per cent of poker machine profits
371. Excluding the holiday spots of Macau and Monaco, Australia has more poker (PC (2010, p. 5.1)).
machines per person than any other country (one for every 114 people according 379. Particularly in 2010-11.
to Morton (2018)). 380. Panichi (2013); see also Ad News (2011) and YouTube (2011).

were not in the party’s interests”.381 Coupled with a “highly effective” A.4 Meeting with some but not others
campaign in marginal seats, the industry’s pattern of donations created
The greyhound racing industry
a “very nervous Labor backbench, particularly in NSW” and put
pressure on the party to back down.382 Three months after announcing a ban on the greyhound racing industry
in NSW Premier Mike Baird, reversed his decision. The ban, which
The Gillard government walked away from its agreement with Wilkie
was passed by the NSW Parliament in August 2016, was introduced in
in early 2012, instead introducing watered-down legislation to tackle
response to a year-long independent inquiry that found systemic animal
problem gambling.383 These modest reforms were repealed when the
cruelty across the industry. The Premier, in announcing the ban, urged
Abbott government won office in 2013.384 Political donations by the
the public to read the report: “It is horrific. It is damning. And it leaves
industry soon dropped back to the level they were at before any policy
the Government with no real choice but to take the action we have.”389
change was proposed (Figure 3.8). The advertising pressure from
industry also subsided. But on 11 October that year, the Premier reversed the ban. And in
the interim, his diary, and that of the Nationals Deputy Premier, show
The industry also appears to have donated to state political parties with
regular meetings with industry representatives390 – but no meetings
policies more aligned to their interests. The gambling industry donated
with stakeholders that supported the ban, such as the RSPCA.391
significant amounts to both major parties in the lead-up to South
Australian election earlier this year,385 but not the SA Best Party which There were political factors at play too. The Nationals were not happy –
focused on pokies reforms. The industry also actively campaigned 60 per cent of greyhound racing tracks in NSW are in regional areas –
against the ALP’s proposal to remove poker machines from pubs and and several Nationals MPs broke ranks to vote against the ban.392 We
clubs in Tasmania.386 Tasmanians won’t know for certain until next will never know what tipped the balance, but we do know that during the
year whether the industry donated throughout the campaign.387 But key months, the Premier and Deputy Premier consulted with one side
there are suggestions that the industry heavily supported pro-pokies of the debate but not the other.
candidates and parties.388
381. Livingstone and Johnson (Attachment 1 2017, p. 8).
382. Livingstone and Johnson (2016). 389. Baird (2016).
383. M. Thomas (2016). 390. The Premier and Deputy Premier met with ‘greyhound industry representatives’
384. Livingstone and Johnson (2016). on 14 July 2016, a week after the ban was announced, and again the following
385. Over the 2017 calendar year the Australian Hotels Associated contributed nearly month. The Deputy Premier held a further four meetings with industry
$50,000 to the Liberal Party, $43,000 to the ALP, and $20,000 to Cory Bernardi’s representatives in July and August 2016 (Grattan analysis of NSW ministerial
Australian Conservatives (Opray (2018)). The Liberal Party and the ALP had diaries).
similar policies on gambling reform at the election (Alliance for Gambling Reform 391. The first meeting with the RSPCA occurred on 11 October, the day the ban
(2018)). was reversed. After the ban was reversed, the government set up a panel to
386. Morton (2018). make recommendations on reforming the industry which included the heads of
387. Tasmania has the same donations disclosure regime as the Commonwealth, and RSPCA NSW, the NSW Greyhound Racing Industry Alliance and the NSW Chief
so there are long lags before donations are published. Veterinary Officer (NSW Department of Industry (2018)).
388. G. Burgess (2018). 392. Glanville and Gerathy (2016).

Appendix B: Associated entities
Political parties can establish organisations to act as fundraising bodies (d) on whose behalf another person is a financial member of a
or investment vehicles in support of the party. Other organisations registered political party; or
may choose to align with a political party to give their cause a political
voice – as some trade unions do. These organisations that act for or (e) that has voting rights in a registered political party; or
are run by a political party are known as ‘associated entities’. Political (f) on whose behalf another person has voting rights in a registered
donations regulation includes explicit provisions for associated entities, political party.
to prevent parties from using these organisations to circumvent their
disclosure requirements. Examples of associated entities include: unions, investment bodies,
fundraising bodies, clubs, think tanks and service companies
But current regulation of associated entities isn’t working. The definition
(Box 14).394 Some associated entities are also third-party campaigners,
of an associated entity in the Commonwealth Electoral Act is too loose,
meaning they act for a political party but also represent other interests.
making it difficult to identify organisations that should be subject to
disclosure requirements. The activities of associated entities have Most states follow the Commonwealth definition of associated entities.
frustrated proper disclosure of donations in the past. And the disclosure NSW is a notable exception; its definition is much narrower. In NSW,
threshold for political donations is too porous, which means a lot of “an associated entity is a corporation or other entity that operates
money flows to associated entities from unknown sources. solely for the benefit of one or more State registered parties or elected
members”.395
The Commonwealth political donations regime is already weak; loose
provisions on associated entities only make it weaker.
B.2 Investment vehicles and unions are the largest associated
entity donors
B.1 What is an associated entity?
Associated entities donated $15 million to political parties in 2015-16
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 287 defines an
and 2016-17 (35 per cent of parties’ declared donations).396 They also
associated entity as an entity:393
contributed at least $14.5 million to the parties via ‘other receipts’.397
(a) that is controlled by one or more registered political parties; or
394. Ibid.
395. NSWEC (2018) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the NSW definition
(b) that operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one of a third-party campaigner is broad compared to other states and the
or more registered political parties; or Commonwealth. NSWEC (ibid.).
396. $9.8m in 2015-16 and $5.2m in 2016-17. Party declarations to the AEC, 2015-16
(c) that is a financial member of a registered political party; or and 2016-17 (AEC (2018a)); Grattan analysis.
397. At least $8.7 in 2015-16 and at least $5.8m in 2016-17. Party declarations to the
393. AEC (2018e) (as at May 2018). AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (ibid.)); Grattan analysis.

Investment vehicles were the largest donors. They gave $6.3 million at investment returns, rent paid for commercial property, or payments for a
the last election398 (most of which came from the Cormack Foundation). service such as income from fundraising dinners.
Associated unions were also large donors – they collectively donated
$5.2 million to the ALP.399 Eight of the top ten associated entity donors
are unions (Figure B.1). Box 14: Three types of associated entity
Some individual associated entities are major donors. In the 2016 We identify three main associated entity ‘types’ that donate to the
election campaign, the Cormack Foundation contributed $4.5 million, major parties:
equivalent to more than a sixth of declared donations to the Coalition.
Investment vehicles, such as the Cormack Foundation for the
The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) was
Liberal Party and the 1973 Foundation for the ALP. They declare
Labor’s largest associated entity contributor and gave $1.35 million –
most of their income (Figure B.2), which is mainly from banks and
about 10 per cent of ALP declared donations.400
other investment bodies.
B.3 Where the money comes from Union associated entities, such as the Shop, Distributive and
Allied Employees Association (SDA) and United Voice, which
The funding of associated entities is largely opaque. More than 75 per support the ALP. Affiliated unions to the ALP pay subscription or
cent of the income flowing to the top ten associated entity donors came membership fees and have voting rights in ALP state or territory
from undisclosed sources.401 party conferences. These unions are, prima facie, associated
The income that is disclosed is not always illuminating. According entities.a Not all unions that donate are associated entities (and
to associated entity disclosures, the vast majority of their declared some state branches might not be, even if other branches from the
receipts were not donations but ‘other receipts’.402 Because the ‘other same union are). For the purposes of this chapter, we combine
receipts’ category is murky (Section 3.6.1 on page 44), it’s not possible donations from state branches of the same union for all branches
to know whether associated entities’ declared receipts came from that are an associated entity of the ALP.
398. $3.8m in 2015-16 and $2.5m in 2016-17. Grattan analysis of party declarations to Fundraising bodies are organisations that host fundraising
the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (2018a)). events on behalf of the parties, for example, Progressive Business
399. $4.2m in 2015-16 and $1.1m in 2016-17. Unions donated more than this overall – for the ALP, and The 500 Club for the Liberal Party. Most of their
not all unions are associated entities, and unions do not exclusively donate to the income comes from undeclared sources.
ALP. Party declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (ibid.)); Grattan
analysis. a. AEC (2011b).
400. Party declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (ibid.)); Grattan
analysis.
401. For 2016-17 only. Some undeclared receipts are likely to be union membership
fees. (AEC (2018f); Grattan analysis).
402. ‘Other receipts’ are any funds received that don’t qualify as a gift (i.e. any receipt
that is not a donation. Section 3.3 on page 33).

B.3.1 What we know Figure B.1: Eight of the top ten associated entities are linked to the ALP,
but the Cormack Foundation gave the most
Most of the funding we know about comes from unions being paid by Total declared donations to ALP and the Coalition, 2015-16 and 2016-17
other unions (e.g. the SDA paying United Voice), and from retailers, combined, $ millions
financial institutions, and property developers (Figure B.2). 5
ALP
B.3.2 What we don’t know Coalition
4
More than three quarters of the funding to the top ten associated
entities is undeclared.403 Like political parties, associated entities
are only required to disclose single donations or other receipts over 3
$13,800.
Some associated entities declare more funding than others 2

(Figure B.3). Almost all receipts to the Cormack Foundation were
declared, as were nearly all receipts to the 1973 Foundation.404 But
almost none of the funding to The 500 Club or the Kooyong 200 Club 1
was made public. Some unions declared 60 per cent of their receipts;
others declared more than 90 per cent.405
0
Cormack SDA United 1973 Pro'sive The 500 Labor CPSU CFMEU* AMWU
F'dation Voice F'dation Business Club Holdings
B.4 How associated entities are regulated
Notes: Chart shows the top ten largest associated entity donors by donations to
Associated entities can be important sources of funding for political the party they are associated with. * The CFMEU national office, which is not an
associated entity of the ALP, gave $90,0000 in addition to the amount shown. Some
parties, so any political donations regime must take them into associated entities donate to parties they are not associated with – these figures are
account. A system that regulates donations to the parties but not their not shown.
associated entities would create incentives to channel political funding Sources: Party declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (2018a)); Grattan
through non-party political organisations. analysis.
The states and the Commonwealth have different approaches to

closing this loophole. At the federal level, associated entities have the
403. Grattan analysis of AEC annual returns.

404. Associated entity declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (2018g));
Grattan analysis.
405. Associated entity declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC (ibid.));
Grattan analysis.

same disclosure requirements as political parties. They must itemise Figure B.2: Associated entities’ receipts come from unions and business
private receipts above the disclosure threshold (currently $13,800) and Top 5 associated entities’ declared receipts, 2015-16 and 2016-17, per cent
list them in an annual return to the AEC.406 They must also disclose the Union
details of capital contributions (deposits) to funds that have been used
Retail + Supermarkets
to benefit a political party.407 State-level approaches differ, but states
that have implemented donations or expenditure caps tend to include Financial
associated entities (and third parties) in the legislation. Property and Construction
Super
B.4.1 Identifying associated entities can be tricky
Other
Figuring out whether an organisation fits the definition of an associated
Professional Services
entity is tricky. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has
CCC
identified three main weaknesses in the Commonwealth Electoral Act
definition:408 Mining
Party
1. it does not capture all entities that it should;
Telecom
2. it captures some groups that do not have influence over political
Health and Edu
party affairs; and
Transport
3. some groups are captured while other, similar groups, are not.
Gambling
The federal Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, acknowledges the Unknown

definition of associated entities “causes grief occasionally”.409 The 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
AEC has suggested the definition be tightened,410 to “make it easier Notes: The ‘top five’ refers to the five largest associated entities at the 2016 election,
406. AEC (2018e). which were the Cormack Foundation, SDA, United Voice, the 1973 Foundation and
407. Ibid. Progressive Business. Payments between branches of the same union were excluded.
408. Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters (s.7.121 2011, p. 173). Sources: Associated entity declarations to the AEC, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (AEC
409. Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees (1.15 2016, p. 3). (2018g)); Grattan analysis.
410. The AEC suggested the following changes (Joint Standing Committee On
Electoral Matters (2011)): (1) defining ‘controlled’ in s287(1)(a) of the Act to
include “the right of a party to appoint a majority of directors, trustees or office
bearers”; (2) defining ‘to a significant extent’ in s287(1)(b) to include associated
entities that distribute more than 50 per cent of their funds, entitlements, benefits
and/or services to a political party in a financial year; (3) defining ‘benefit’ as used
in s287(1)(b) to include the receipt of favourable, non-commercial arrangements
where the party or its members ultimately receives the benefit.

for everyone involved in the process to understand what an associated Figure B.3: We don’t know much about how associated entities are
entity is”.411 funded
Associated entity receipts, top 3 for each type, 2016-17 only
There is also no formal process for detecting associated entities. 100%
Political parties are not required to identify their associated entities
with the AEC.412 The AEC identifies associated entities based
80%
on information in the public domain or contained in political party
disclosure returns, or it relies on groups self-identifying as associated Known
entities of their own accord.413 Although there are penalties for 60%
non-disclosure, they might be waived if the associated entity submits Un-
known
a late disclosure return.414
40%
B.4.2 Regulating associated entities can be political

20%
A challenge with associated entity regulation is to find a way to ensure
regulations don’t benefit the associated entities of one party over
another. 0%
Cormack 1973 Labor SDA United CFMEU Pro'siveThe 500 K'yong
F'dation F'dation H'dings Voice Business Club 200 Club
Part of the problem is that different associated entity ‘types’ tend to
Investment vehicles Associated unions Fundraising bodies
support different parties – most notably unions overwhelmingly support
Note: These figures include declared tax returns, the internal movement of money, and
the ALP.415 The diversity of goals and activities of associated entities returns on investments.
Sources: Associated entity declarations to the AEC 2016-17 (AEC (2018g)); Grattan
411. Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees (1.15 2016, p. 3). analysis.
412. AEC (Attachment 11 2017a, p. 9).
413. Ibid. (p. 9).
414. For instance, in one case an associated entity did not submit returns with the
AEC for some years (partially because of the challenges in identifying associated
entities). Although this was a breach of the Act, the matter was not pursued
further once the returns were finally submitted (Senate Finance and Public
Administration Committees (2016)).
415. Affiliated unions have a vote in party conferences and have a lot of sway over
party policy. They might actively campaign for the ALP or policy outcomes
at an election. But in advocating for their members they will also engage in
activities that are unrelated or only somewhat related to the interests of the ALP.
Investment vehicles or fundraising bodies, by contrast, tend to have a much lower
public profile and may exclusively support their associated party through financial
contributions.

contributes to the complexity of regulating political donations and has The cap on political advertising expenditure that we propose would also
caused Constitutional headaches for many would-be reformers.416 affect different kinds of associated entities more fairly than a cap on
donations.
Donations caps – a favourite of state regulators – especially tend to
cause distortions. For instance in NSW, donations from associated
entities to parties are subject to the same cap as all other donations,
but party subscription fees paid by affiliated unions to the ALP are
not.417 The Coalition in Victoria withdrew support for a similar donations
regime earlier this year, saying the caps “limit some donations to
[Labor’s] political opponents but allow the unions to continue to
financially support the Labor Party [through affiliation fees]”.418
B.5 The need for reform

A 2016 Senate inquiry report on the regulation of associated entities
concluded that challenges in identifying associated entities and the
high thresholds for disclosure of their funding together “give donors a
safe harbour from regulatory scrutiny”,419 and it’s difficult to ‘follow the
money’ between donors, associated entities and political parties.
Tightening the definition of an ‘associated entity’, as the AEC has

suggested, is important in helping ensure existing legislation – and new
provisions recommended in this report – are not circumvented.
Lowering the disclosure threshold and aggregating donations under

the threshold (as we recommend in Section 5.1.3) would reduce the
amount of non-itemised funding flowing through associated entities
and would affect different associated entity types evenly, so long as
membership fees over the threshold are also declared.
416. e.g. Bibby and Hasham (2013).

417. Up to a certain amount, depending on the membership numbers of the entity.
NSWEC (2015).
418. Willingham (2018).
419. Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees (2016, p. 25).

Bibliography
ABC News (2018). “Gambling survey finds support for pokies reform”. ABC (2012). Analyse Political Party Returns – 2011-12. Australian
News. Electoral Commission.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-28/gambling-survey/2814092. https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/AnalysisParty.aspx.
Abdel Fadil, M. (2013). “Crony Capitalism”. Independent Review 17.4, (2013). Analyse Political Party Returns – 2012-13. Australian
pp. 541–559. Electoral Commission.
https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/AnalysisParty.aspx.
ABS (2017). Australian National Accounts: State Accounts, 2016-17. Cat. No.
5220.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. http: (2014). Analyse Political Party Returns – 2013-14. Australian
//www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5220.02016- Electoral Commission.
17?OpenDocument. https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/AnalysisParty.aspx.
ACCC (2018a). Market Studies. Australian Competition & Consumer (2016). Analyse Political Party Returns – 2015-16. Australian
Commission. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/market-studies Electoral Commission.
(visited on 07/09/2018). https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/AnalysisParty.aspx.
(2018b). Sydney Transport Partners Consortium (Including (2017a). Submission to JSCEM inquiry into and report on all aspects
Transurban) – Proposed Acquisition Of Westconnex Interest. of the conduct of the 2016 Federal Election and matters related
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. http://registers.accc thereto. Submission 66. Australian Electoral Commission. https:
.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemid/1205063/fromitemid/750991. //www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_repr
esentatives_committees?url=em/political%20funding/report.htm.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012). “Why Nations Fail: Origins of Power,
Poverty and Prosperity”. Crown Business. (2017b). Financial Disclosure Compliance Framework. Australian
Election Commission. https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Represent
Ad News (2011). It’s Un-Australian.
atives/compliance/index.htm.
http://www.adnews.com.au/campaign/it-s-un-australian.
(2018a). Analyse Political Party Returns 2016-17. Australian Electoral
AEC (2011a). Submission To The Joint Standing Committee On Electoral
Commission.
Matters On The Inquiry Into The Funding Of Political Parties And
https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/AnalysisParty.aspx.
Election Campaigns. Submission 19. Australian Electoral
Commission. (2018b). Election Funding Guide. Australian Electoral Commission.
https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_o https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/el
f_representatives_committees?url=em/political%20funding/subs.htm. ection-funding.htm.
(2011b). Trade Unions as Associated Entities. Australian Election (2018c). Submission to the Select Committee into the Influence of
Commission. https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/P Political Donations. Submission 2. Australian Election Commission.
arty_Registration/Information_Sheets/Trade_Unions.htm. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations/Submissions.

AEC (2018d). Political Expenditure Summary – Annual Returns. Australian Ansolabehere et al. (2003). Ansolabehere, S., Figueiredo, J. M. de and
Electoral Commission. https: Jr, J. M. S. “Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of
//periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/SummaryPoliticalExpenditure.aspx. Economic Perspectives 17.1, pp. 105–130.
(2018e). Associated Entities. Australian Election Commission. APPEA (2012). Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.
https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_discl https://www.appea.com.au/wp-
osure/guides/associated-entities/. content/uploads/2013/04/appea_yir12_web1.pdf.
(2018f). Summary of all Associated Entity Returns – 2016-17. Appleby, G. (2014). “What’s The Case For A Federal ICAC?” ABC News.
Australian Electoral Commission. https: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/appleby-whats-the-case-for-
//periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/SummaryAssociatedEntity.aspx. a-federal-icac/5733712.
(2018g). Analyse Associated Entity Returns. Australian Electoral APRA (2018). Annual Fund-Level Superannuation Statistics. Australian
Commission. https: Prudential Regulation Authority.
//periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/SummaryAssociatedEntity.aspx. https://www.apra.gov.au/publications/annual-fund-level-
superannuation-statistics (visited on 09/08/2018).
AFR (2017). “Bill Forcing A Third Independent Super Fund Directors Will
Cause Shockwaves”. Australian Financial Review. Aulby, H. (2017a). The tip of the iceberg: Political donations from the mining
http://www.afr.com/brand/chanticleer/bill-forcing-a-third-independent- industry. The Australia Institute. http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/fil
super-fund-directors-will-cause-shockwaves-20170911-gyf5ml. es/P339%20Tip%20of%20the%20iceberg.pdf.
Aggarwal et al. (2012). Aggarwal, R. K., Meschke, F. and Wang, T. Y. (2017b). Undermining Our Democracy Foreign Corporate Influence
“Corporate Political Donations: Investment Or Agency?” Business and Through The Australian Mining Lobby–Discussion Paper. The
Politics 14.01, pp. 1–38. https://www.Cambridge.org/Core/Product/Ide Australia Institute. http://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/p307%20for
ntifier/S1369525800003399/Type/Journal_Article. eign%20influence%20on%20australian%20mining_0.pdf.
Alliance for Gambling Reform (2018). South Australian 2018 Election Policy. Austin, P. and Millar, R. (2009). “$10,000 to sit next to Brumby”. Sydney
http://www.pokiesplayyou.org.au/sa_election_policy. Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/10000-to-sit-next-
to-brumby-20091102-htgr.html.
ALP (2015). ALP National Constitution. https://cdn.australianlabor.com.au/doc
uments/alp_national_constitution.pdf. Australian Beverages Council (2016). Australian Beverages Annual Report.
Australian Beverages Council.
AMA (2018). Nutrition–Ama Recommendations.
https://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gz7s0g/annualreport.pdf.
https://ama.com.au/position-statement/nutrition-2018 (visited on
09/08/2018). Australian Government (2018a). Lobbying Code of Conduct.
https://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/conduct_code.cfm (visited on
Angus, C. (2017). Unsolicited Proposals. October. NSW Parliamentary
01/07/2018).
Research Service: Issues Backgrounder, pp. 1–15. https:
//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/pages/unsolicited-
proposals-issues-backgrounder.aspx.

Australian Government (2018b). Statement of Ministerial Standards. February. Barro, C. (2018). “Institute of Public Affairs growing but think tank remains
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. tight-lipped about donors”. The New Daily.
https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement- https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/07/24/ipa-
ministerial-standards.pdf. membership-donors/.
(2018c). Guidelines relating to Official Gifts received. Baumgartner, F. R. and Leech, B. L. (2001). “Interest Niches And Policy
https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/official-gifts/guidelines-relating- Bandwagons: Patterns Of Interest Group Involvement In National
official-gifts-received (visited on 07/09/2018). Politics”. The Journal of Politics 63.4, pp. 1191–1213.
Australian Public Service Commission (2017). APS Values and Code of Baumgartner et al. (2009). Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M.,
Conduct in practice. Kimball, D. C. and Leech, B. L. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who
https://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-values-and-code-conduct-practice Wins, Who Loses, and Why. University of Chicago Press.
(visited on 07/09/2018).
Baumol, W. J. (1996). “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and
Axelrod, R. (1986). “An Evolutionary Approach To Norms”. The American Destructive”. Journal of Business Venturing 11.1, pp. 3–22. https:
Political Science Review 80.4, pp. 1095–1111. //www.Sciencedirect.com/Science/Article/Abs/Pii/088390269400014x.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960858.
Baxendale, R. (2018). “Attorney-General Christian Porter says passage of spy
Baird, M. (2016). Facebook post – 9 July. laws ‘urgent’”. The Australian.
https://www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP/posts/1136598769801696. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/attorneygeneral-
christian-porter-says-passage-of-spy-laws-urgent/news-
Banks, G. (2013a). “Restoring Trust in Public Policy: What Role for the Public
story/e7d4cbc4f4bb5791c2effff64ed7b5a6.
Service?” Garran Oration. Canberra.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/563997f0e4b0d7adb678285e/t Beecher, E. (2013). “The death of Fairfax and the end of newspapers”. The
/58aa67b237c581c01316343e/1487562679971/The+Governance+o Monthly July.
f+Public+Policy+Lectures+in+Honour+of+Eminent+Australians.pdf. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/july/1372600800/eric-
beecher/death-fairfax-and-end-newspapers.
(2013b). “Return of the Rent-Seeking Society?” The Stan Kelly
Lecture. Melbourne. Begg, M. and Breheny, S. (2017). Rivers Of Gold – How The Trade Union
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/563997f0e4b0d7adb678285e/t Movement Is Funded By Industry Super. Nov. Institute Of Public
/58aa67b237c581c01316343e/1487562679971/The+Governance+o Affairs. https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/research-papers/rivers-
f+Public+Policy+Lectures+in+Honour+of+Eminent+Australians.pdf. gold-trade-union-movement-funded-industry-super.
Bardhan et al. (1997). Bardhan, P., Berthelemy, J.-C., Goudie, A., Olson, M., Bell, S. and Hindmoor, A. (2014). “The Structural Power Of Business And The
Rodrik, D., Rose-Ackermnan, S. and Shleifer, A. “Corruption And Power Of Ideas: The Strange Case Of The Australian Mining Tax”.
Development: A Review Of Issues”. Journal Of Economic Literature New Political Economy 19.3, pp. 470–486.
35.3, pp. 1320–1346. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729979.
Belot, H. (2017a). “Malcolm Turnbull announces biggest overhal of espionage,
intelligence laws in decades”. ABC Online.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-05/turnbull-announces-foreign-
interference-laws/9227514.

Belot, H. (2017b). “Robb ’didn’t break rules’ by taking $880k job with Chinese Bilyk et al. (2018). Bilyk, C., Dastyari, S., Singh, L., Ludlam, S.,
billionaire”. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-07/andrew-robb- Hanson-Young, S., Duniam, J., Paterson, J. and Xenophon, N. Future
china-consultancy-role-billionaire-scott-ryan/8596854. of Public Interest Journalism. Senate Select Committee on the Future
of Public Interest Journalism. https:
(2018). “Explainer: Here’s what you need to know about the
//www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Futu
Government’s foreign interference laws”. ABC Online.
re_of_Public_Interest_Journalism/PublicInterestJournalism/Report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-24/explainer-foreign-
interference-laws/9356050. Binderkrantz et al. (2017). Binderkrantz, A. S., Bonafont, L. C. and
Halpin, D. R. “Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest Groups in the
Benson, S. (2018). “Labor Victory Fuelled By Catholic Education Backing”.
Media in the UK, Spain and Denmark”. British Journal of Political
The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
Science 47.2, pp. 313–328.
affairs/state-politics/labor-victory-fuelled-by-catholic-education-
backing/news-story/00699507daa2db27714249a9e47287fc. Bishop, P. and Davis, G. (2002). “Community Consultation Symposium
Mapping Public Participation In Policy Choices”. 61.March, pp. 14–29.
Berg et al. (1995). Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and Mccabe, K. “Trust, Reciprocity,
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8500.00255.
And Social History”. Games And Economic Behavior 10.1,
pp. 122–142. https: Blackwood, E. (2017). “Queensland election: Party donations revealed in new
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0899825685710275. real-time electronic disclosure”. ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-12/online-disclosure-reveals-
Bertrand et al. (2011). Bertrand, M., Bombardini, M. and Trebbi, F. “Is It Whom
queensland-election-party-donations/9141352.
You Know Or What You Know? An Empirical Assessment”. National
Bureau Of Economic Research 104.12, pp. 3885–3920. Blanes i Vidal et al. (2012). Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M. and Fons-Rosen, C.
“Revolving Door Lobbyists”. American Economic Review 102.7,
Besley et al. (2017). Besley, J., McCright, A., Martin, J., Elliot, K. and Zahry, N.
pp. 3731–3748.
“People don’t trust scientific research when companies are involved”.
The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/people-dont-trust- Blumer, C. (2016). “Election 2016 Ad Tracker: How Much Are The Parties
scientific-research-when-companies-are-involved-76848. Spending?” ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-
24/election-campaign-advertising/7400826.
Bessen, J. E. (2016). Accounting for rising corporate profits: intangibles or
regulatory rents? https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2016/11/Accounting- Blumer, C. and Conifer, D. (2016). “Revealed: The Parties Spent $10m To Put
for-Rising-Corporate-Profits.pdf. These 10 Ads On Your TV”. ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-30/election-2016-advertising-
Bibby, P. and Hasham, N. (2013). “High Court rules NSW political donations
spending/7517528.
laws invalid”. Sydney Morning Herald.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/high-court-rules-nsw-political- Bonardi et al. (2006). Bonardi, J.-P., Holburn, G. L. F. and Bergh, R. G. V.
donations-laws-invalid-20131218-2zk8t.html. “Nonmarket Strategy Performance: Evidence From U.S. Electric
Utilities”. Academy Of Management Journal 49.6, pp. 1209–1228.
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2006.23478676?journa
lcode=amj.

Bradley, M. (2016). “Casinos, Lock-Out Laws, And The Unravelling Of Mike Butler, M. (2017). “How Australia bungled climate policy to create a decade of
Baird”. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-17/bradley- disappointment”. The Guardian. https:
baird-and-the-lock-out-laws/7251396. //www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/05/how-australia-
bungled-climate-policy-to-create-a-decade-of-disappointment.
Bragg, A. (2017). “Andrew Bragg on the web of money and influence in
Australian left-wing politics”. Australian Financial Review. Caldwell, F. (2016). “Calls for all political donations to be banned in
https://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-bragg-on-the-web-of- Queensland”. Brisbane Times Jul.05. https:
money-and-influence-in-australian-leftwing-politics-20170910-gyeljc. //www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/calls-for-all-political-
donations-to-be-banned-in-queensland-20180705-p4zpr4.html
Brissenden, M. (2018). “Big Sugar And The ‘Big Flaw’ In Australia’s Federal
(visited on 31/07/2018).
Health Programs”. ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-30/big-sugar-and-the-big-flaw- Cameron, S. M. and McAllister, I. (2016). Trends in Australian Political Opinion
in-australias-health-programs/9707204. Results from the Australian Election Study 1987–2016. Australian
National University. http://australianelectionstudy.org/.
Brou, D. and Ruta, M. (2013). “Rent-seeking, market structure, and growth”.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 115.3, pp. 878–901. Campbell, R. (2015a). Are there 27,000 jobs in the Galilee Basin? The
Australia Institute.
Brown et al. (2018). Brown, A., Graycar, A., Kelly, K., Coghill, K., Prenzler, T.
http://www.tai.org.au/content/are-there-27000-jobs-galilee-basin.
and Janet Ransley. A National Integrity Commission – Options For
Australia. August. Griffith University. (2015b). “Fact check: Will Adani’s coal mine really boost employment
by 10,000 jobs?” The Australian.
Bruckner, T. (2017). “Think tanks, evidence and policy: democratic players or
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/fact-
clandestine lobbyists?” LSE Impact Blog.
check-will-adanis-coal-mine-really-boost-employment-by-10000-
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/02/08/think-tanks-
jobs/news-story/903c1932738b1d1a1763c74e45f4d7c7.
evidence-and-policy/.
Campion, V. and Wood, A. (2012). “Barry O’farrell Is Backing James Packer’s
Burgess, K. (2017). “Truth In Political Advertising Laws ’Unworkable’, Act
Barangaroo Casino”. The Daily Telegraph Feb.26.
Electoral Commission Says”. Canberra Times Jul.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/barry-ofarrell-is-backing-james-
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/truth-in-political-
packers-barangaroo-casino/news-
advertising-laws-unworkable-act-electoral-commission-says-
story/f6c45d6c811d183289160a8350d2cd18.
20170725-gxi74t.html.
Canavan, M. (2016). Canavan welcomes Adani’s regional commitment.
Burgess, G. (2018). “Tasmanian election: Liberals dispute claims of $5 million
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
campaign spend”. ABC News.
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-05/tasmanian-liberals-reject-
releases/canavan-welcomes-adanis-regional-commitment.
%5C$5-million-campaign-spend-claim/9510156.
Burstein, P. and Linton, A. (2002). “The Impact Of Political Parties, Interest
Groups, And Social Movement Organizations On Public Policy: Some
Recent Evidence And Theoretical Concerns”. Social Forces 81.2,
pp. 381–408.

Canberra Times (2018). “Case For A Federal Anti-Corruption Watchdog Claessens et al. (2008). Claessens, S., Feijen, E. and Laeven, L. “Political
Grows Stronger By The Day”. Canberra Times. connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/case-for-a-federal- contributions”. Journal of Financial Economics 88.3, pp. 554–580.
anticorruption-watchdog-grows-stronger-by-the-day-20180111-
Clarence, J. (2018). Who funds Federal Parliamentarians’ overseas travel?
h0gw45.html.
June. Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Cao et al. (2018). Cao, Z., Fernando, G. D., Tripathy, A. and Upadhyay, A. “The https://www.aspi.org.au/report/who-funds-federal-parliamentarians-
Economics of Corporate Lobbying”. Journal of Corporate Finance 49, overseas-travel.
pp. 54–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jcorpfin.2017.12.012.
Cleary, P. (2011). Too Much Luck: The Mining Boom And Australia’s Future.
Carbonell, R. (2010). Mining industry wins the advertising war. ABC. Melbourne, Australia: Schwartz Publishing Pty. Ltd. http://ebookcentr
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2943169.htm. al.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docid=1887539.
Center for Responsive Politics (2018). Total lobbying spending in the United Clennell, A. and Lehmann, J. (2013). “Billionaire James Packer Gets Green
States from 1998 to 2017. Light To Build Casino At Barangaroo”. The Daily Telegraph.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bookmakers-back-
james-packers-crown-ltd-to-beat-echo-entertainments-the-star-in-
Chang, C. (2016). “Malcolm Turnbull’s photo call with suburban family
barangaroo-battle/news-story/e24efa7a6fcaa07597a94b1bfbb31929.
backfires”. news.com.au.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian- Clore, G. L. and Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). “How Emotions Inform Judgment
economy/malcolm-turnbulls-photo-call-with-suburban-family- And Regulate Thought”. Trends In Cognitive Sciences 11.9,
backfires/news-story/eff9e413d5e22467f5a006551671cc35. pp. 393–399.
Chari et al. (2010). Chari, R., Hogan, J. and Murphy, G. Regulating Lobbying: Coghill, K. (2018). Strengthening Integrity Assurance For Parliament And
A Global Comparison. Manchester University Press. Politics. Paper Presented At The National Integrity Systems
Symposium In Canberra On 21 August, pp. 1–13.
Chen et al. (2015). Chen, H., Parsley, D. and Yang, Y. W. “Corporate Lobbying
http://transparency.org.au/nis-symposium/.
and Firm Performance”. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
42.3-4, pp. 444–481. Coghill et al. (2008a). Coghill, K., Donohue, R. and Holland, P. “Parliamentary
Accountability To The Public – Developing MPs’ Ethical Standards”.
Chirinko, R. S. and Wilson, D. J. (2010). “Can Lower Taxes be Bought?
Australasian Parliamentary Review 23.1, pp. 101–120.
Business Rent-seeking and Tax”. National Tax Journal 63.4,
pp. 967–993. Coghill et al. (2008b). Coghill, K., Holland, P., Donohue, R., Rozzoli, K. and
Grant, G. “Professional development programmes for members of
Chivers et al. (2018). Chivers, C., Wood, D. and Griffiths, K. “Time for the
parliament”. Parliamentary Affairs 61.1, pp. 73–98.
federal government to catch up on political donations reform”. The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/new-style-lobbying-how- Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (2016). Codes Of Conduct For
getup-channels-australians-voices-into-politics-60625. Parliamentarians Handbook Updated 2016. Feb. Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association and Monash University. http://www.cpahq.
org/cpahq/main/document_library/codes_of_conduct/codes_of_cond
uct_for_parliamentarians_handbook_updated_2016.aspx.

Conger, J. (1998). “The Necessary Art Of Persuasion”. Harvard Business De Figueiredo, R. J. P. and Edwards, G. (2007). “Does Private Money Buy
Review 76.3, pp. 84–95. http://www.annbadillo.com/leadership/files/n Public Policy? Campaign Contributions And Regulatory Outcomes In
ecessary_art_persuasion_jay_conger.pdf. Telecommunications”. Journal Of Economics And Management
Strategy 16.3, pp. 547–576.
Conlon et al. (2018). Conlon, G., Halterbeck, M. and Julius, J. The economic
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00150.x.
impact of Group of Eight universities (Australia). London Economics.
https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/economic-impact- Del Rosal, I. (2011). “The Empirical Measurement Of Rent-Seeking Costs”.
group-eight-universities-australia/. Journal Of Economic Surveys 25.2, pp. 298–325.
Cordis, A. S. and Milyo, J. (2013). “Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Denniss, R. (2016). “Economists cook the books”. Australian Financial
Reduce Public Corruption?”, pp. 1–48. Review. https://www.afr.com/opinion/economists-cook-the-books-
20160307-gnci3x.
Cowan, S. (2018). “Should think tanks be forced to disclose their funders?”
Sydney Morning Herald. Dent, C. and Kenyon, A. T. (2004). “Defamation Law’s Chilling Effect: A
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/should-think-tanks-be- Comparative Content Analysis of Australian and US Newspapers”.
forced-to-disclose-their-funders-20180802-p4zv4g.html. Media & Arts Law Review 9, p. 89.
Crikey (2010). “Spinning The Media: Key Findings In A Week In The Life Of Department of Finance (2017). Reports on Campaign Advertising.
The Media”. Crikey. https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/spinning- Commonwealth of Australia. https:
the-media-key-findings-in-a-week-in-the-life-of-the-media/. //www.finance.gov.au/advertising/campaign-advertising-reports.html.
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018 (Cth). Department Of Health (2014). Weighted Average Monthly Treatment Cost
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bill (WAMTC) User’s Manual.
s_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6018. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/pricing/pbs-items/wamtc-user-
manual-calculator.
Daily Telegraph (2011). “People’s Parliament – The Atmosphere”. Daily
Telegraph March.11. Department of Industry (2017). Hidden in Plain Sight. Department of Industry,
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/peoples-parliament-the- Innovation and Science.
atmosphere/news-story/32dbe3f4f8a67b60279be2d8ebe62381?sv https://archive.industry.gov.au/innovation/Documents/OGP-
=732d873ff728bb34e0be2d6708d49ee3. Commitment-5.2-Discover-Report-Hidden-in-Plain-Sight.pdf.
Daley, J. (2017). “What philanthropy, advocacy, and policy influencers can Dinan, W. and Miller, D. (2007). Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR
learn from political economy”. Philanthropy Meets Parliament Summit. and the Assault on Democracy. Pluto Press.
https://grattan.edu.au/news/what-philanthropy-advocacy-and-policy- https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/8798/.
influencers-can-learn-from-political-economy/.
Dow Jones (2018). Factiva Database.
Daley, J. and Wood, D. (2016). “A Low Cost Way to Derail the Housing https://www.dowjones.com/products/factiva/.
Debate”. Inside Story. https://insidestory.org.au/a-low-cost-way-to-
derail-the-housing-debate/.

Dowling, J. (2013). “Casino Empire Grows With Help From Powerful Friends”. Duffy, C. (2016). “How Democratic Are These Backroom Pre-Selection
Sydney Morning Herald. Battles?” ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/duffy-
https://www.smh.com.au/national/casino-empire-grows-with-help- how-democratic-are-these-backroom-pre-selection-battles/7152792.
from-powerful-friends-20130622-2opa0.html.
Dur, A. and Bievre, D. de (2007). “The question of interest group influence”.
DPS (2017). Senate Estimates – Finance and Public Administration Journal of Public Policy 27.1, pp. 1–12.
Legislation Committee – 23 October.
Durkin, P. and Bleby, M. (2016). “Investors may lose $1000 a year under
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CO
Labor’s negative gearing plan”. Australian Financial Review.
MMITTEES;id=committees%5C%2Festimate%5C%2F879d8fd7-
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/investors-may-lose-1000-a-year-
6921-4d1b-90e6-d66a015a5385%5C%2F0004;query=Id%5C%3A
under-labors-negative-gearing-plan-20160214-gmtnvk.
%5C%22committees%5C%2Festimate%5C%2F879d8fd7-6921-
4d1b-90e6-d66a015a5385%5C%2F0000%5C%22. Dwyer, T. and Muller, D. (2016). “FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media
ownership concentration one of the highest in the world?” The
Drill et al. (2015). Drill, S., Whinnett, E. and Minear, T. “Golf fanatic and
Conversation.
millionaire businessman Paul Marks became the Liberals’ best
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-
friend”. Herald Sun.
ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/golf-fanatic-and-
millionaire-businessman-paul-marks-became-the-liberals-best- Easton, S. (2018a). “PM&C Shrugs Off Audit Of Toothless Federal Lobbying
friend/news-story/82eca91bc350e4cac88360170c66d556. Rules”. The Mandarin. https://www.themandarin.com.au/88434-pmc-
shrugs-off-audit-of-toothless-federal-lobbying-rules/.
Duckett et al. (2013). Duckett, S., Breadon, P., Ginnivan, L. and
Venkataraman, P. Australia’s bad drug deal: high pharmaceutical (2018b). “National Integrity Commission: Got A Better Idea To
prices. Grattan Institute. Strengthen Public Trust?” The Mandarin.
https://grattan.edu.au/report/australias-bad-drug-deal/. https://www.themandarin.com.au/87951-national-integrity-
commission-better-idea-to-strengthen-public-trust/.
Duckett, S. and Breadon, P. (2015). Premium policy? Getting better value from
the PBS. Report No. 2015-3. Grattan Institute. ECQ (2018). Disclosure Returns. https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/candidates-and-
https://grattan.edu.au/report/premium-policy-getting-better-value- parties/funding-and-disclosure/disclosure-returns (visited on
from-the-pbs/. 15/04/2018).
Duckett et al. (2016). Duckett, S., Swerissen, H. and Wiltshire, T. A sugary Edwards, B. (2017). Submission To Select Committee Into The Political
drinks tax: recovering the community costs of obesity. Report No. Influence Of Donations.
2016-15. Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-sugary- https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/
drinks-tax-recovering-the-community-costs/. political_influence_of_donations/politicaldonations/submissions.
Duckett, S. and Banerjee, P. (2017). Cutting A Better Drug Deal. Report No. Edwards, J. (2017). “Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel Project Cost Blows Out
2017-3. Grattan Institute. By $1.2b”. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-
https://grattan.edu.au/report/cutting-a-better-drug-deal/. 12/melbournes-west-gate-tunnel-project-cost-blows-out/9248994.

Edwards, B. (2018). “The Truth About Political Donations: There Is So Much European Institute for Public Participation (2009). Public Participation in
We Don’t Know”. The Conversation. Europe: An international perspective. June.
https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-political-donations-there- https://www.partizipation.at/fileadmin/media_data/Downloads/Zukunf
is-so-much-we-dont-know-91003. tsdiskurse-Studien/pp_in_e_report_03_06.pdf.
EFANSW (2011). Annual Report 2010-11. Election Funding Authority of NSW. Fantin, E. (2018). “Parliament Censures Former Minister Bruce Billson For
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/206143/ Undeclared Payments”. ABC News.
Annual-Report-2010-11.pdf. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-27/parliament-censures-former-
minister-bruce-billson/9593082.
(2016). Annual Report 2015-16. Election Funding Authority of NSW.
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/206143/ FARE (2018). Submission to the Select Committee into the Influence of
Annual-Report-2010-11.pdf. Political Donations. Submission 25. Foundation for Alcohol Research.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
Elections Canada (2018a). Breakdown of Paid Election Expenses by Expense
Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations/Submissions.
Category and Registered Political Party – 2015 General Election.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&dir=oth/pol/break&d Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000). “Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of
ocument=brk42ge&lang=e. Reciprocity”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14.3,
pp. 159–181. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646924.
(2018b). Political Financing.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&lang=e. Filer et al. (2016). Filer, N., King, N. and Murry, Y. Submission for Inquiry into
Commonwealth Elecotral Amendment (Political Donations and Other
Elections NZ (2017). part 3: Election Expenses, Donations and Loans.
Measures) Bill 2016).
https://www.elections.org.nz/party-secretary-handbook/part-3-
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f76cdadc-488e-
election-expenses-donations-and-loans.
4615-ace5-034d27e55a7f&subId=412846.
(2018). Party Returns For The 2017 General Election.
Flavin, P. (2015). “Campaign Finance Laws, Policy Outcomes, And Political
https://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/reports-
Equality In The American States”. Political Research Quarterly 68.1,
statistics/party-returns-2017-general-election.
pp. 77–88.
Essential (2018). Sugar tax – Essential Report.
Forde, S. and Johnston, J. (2013). “The News Triumvirate: Public Relations,
http://www.essentialvision.com.au/sugar-tax.
Wire Agencies And Online Copy”. Journalism Studies 14.1,
Essential Services Commission (2013). Progress Of Electricity Retail pp. 113–129.
Competition In Victoria: Research Paper. Essential Services
Fraussen, B. and Halpin, D. (2016). “Assessing The Composition And
Commission. https://www.esc.vic.gov.au/electricity-and-
Diversity Of The Australian Interest Group System”. Australian
gas/electricity-and-gas-market-performance-and-reporting/electricity-
Journal Of Public Administration 75.4, pp. 476–491.
retail-prices-and-margins-reporting-2013.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12188.
EuroPAM (2018). EuroPAM Data.
http://europam.eu/?module=data-downloads.

Fyffe et al. (2017). Fyffe, A. et al. At what price? The economic, social and Gouldner, A. W. (1960). “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement”.
icon value of the Great Barrier Reef. Deloitte Access Economics. American Sociological Review 25.2, pp. 161–178.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Econo http://www.jstor.org/stable/2092623.
mics/deloitte-au-economics-great-barrier-reef-230617.pdf.
Gribbin, C. and Conifer, D. (2018). “‘Significant’ political donor bribed UN
Gartrell, A. (2016). “No More ’Mediscares’: Australians Want Political Truth In official, Government MP tells Parliament”. ABC News.
Advertising Laws”. Sydney Morning Herald. https: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/chau-chak-wing-un-bribe-
//www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-more-mediscares-australians- scandal/9788926.
want-political-truth-in-advertising-laws-20160708-gq1iu2.html.
Griffiths, K. (2017). “Australia’s ‘Nothing To See Here’ Approach To Climate
Gartrell, A. and Bagshaw, E. (2018). “Malcolm Turnbull Tops List Of Australia’s Policy”. Pursuit. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-
Largest Political Donors”. Sydney Morning Herald. nothing-to-see-here-approach-to-climate-policy.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-turnbull-tops-list-of-
Grimmelikhuijsen et al. (2013). Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G.,
australia-s-largest-political-donors-20180201-p4yz62.html.
Hong, B. and Im, T. “The Effect Of Transparency On Trust In
Gauja, A. (2014). “Public funding of election campaigns won’t end improper Government: A Cross-National Comparative Experiment”. Public
influence”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/public- Administration Review 73, pp. 575–586.
funding-of-election-campaigns-wont-end-improper-influence-26091.
Haber, S. (2002). “Introduction: The Political Economy Of Crony Capitalism”.
GetUp! (2018a). Who We Are. https://www.getup.org.au/about. Crony Capitalism And Economic Growth In Latin America: Theory
And Evidence. Hoover Institution Press. Chap. Introduction.
(2018b). Let’s Take The Power Back.
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/core-member-2016/election-
/0817999620_xi.pdf.
strategy-launch/let-s-take-the-power-back.
Hadani, M. and Schuler, D. A. (2013). “in Search of El Dorado: The Elusive
GHD (2013). Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project SEIS. GHD.
Financial Returns on Corporate Political Investments”. Strategic
http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Carmichael%5C%20Coal%5C%20Min
Management Journal 34, pp. 165–181.
e%5C%20and%5C%20Rail/SEIS/Appendices/Appendix-E-
Economic-Assessment-Report.pdf. Halpin, D. and Warhurst, J. (2015). “Commercial Lobbying In Australia:
Exploring The Australian Lobby Register”. Australian Journal Of
Gilens, M. and Page, B. I. (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics:
Public Administration 75.1, pp. 100–111.
Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”. Perspectives on
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12159%7B%5C%%7D0a.
Politics 12.3, pp. 564–581.
Hannan, E. (2017). “CFMEU blamed for ALP preselection split”. The
Glanville, B. and Gerathy, S. (2016). “NSW Premier Mike Baird admits he ‘got
Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-
it wrong’ after backflip on greyhound racing ban”. ABC.
politics/cfmeu-blamed-for-alp-preselection-split/news-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-11/greyhound-ban-baird-
story/c122173413b2b5a5695f495ae370266d.
government-confirms-backflip/7921000.
Harper et al. (2015). Harper, I., Anderson, P., Mccluskey, S. and O’bryan, M.
Competition Policy Review: Final Report.
http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/final-report/.

Hasham, N. (2018). “Federal Government To Lend Money To Adani Business Hunter, F. (2016). “Sam Dastyari Contradicted Labor Policy, Backed China’s
Associates”. Sydney Morning Herald. Position In Sea Dispute At Event With Donor”. Sydney Morning
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-to-lend- Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sam-dastyari-
money-to-adani-business-associates-20180305-p4z2uy.html. contradicted-labor-policy-backed-chinas-position-in-sea-dispute-at-
event-with-donor-20160901-gr60hv.html.
Head, B. W. (2007). “Community Engagement: Participation On Whose
Terms?” Australian Journal Of Political Science 42.3, pp. 441–454. Hutchinson, S. (2018a). “Open books or lose funding, Cormack Foundation
tells Libs”. The Australian.
Henderson, A. and Bradfield, E. (2016). “Former resources minister Ian
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/open-
Macfarlane says new mining job complies with code of conduct”. ABC
books-or-lose-funding-cormack-foundation-tells-libs/news-
News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-26/ian-macfarlane-
story/d59e4bae069feaeff9676b73b534cc08.
appointed-to-run-queensland-mining-lobby/7876942.
(2018b). “Cormack Foundation lifts freeze on donating to Victorian Lib
Hetherington, M. J. and Husser, J. A. (2012). “How trust matters: The
MPs”. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
changing political relevance of political trust”. American Journal of
affairs/state-politics/cormack-foundation-lifts-freeze-on-donating-to-
Political Science 56.2, pp. 312–325.
victorian-lib-mps/news-story/973b6b77c4ec2146fc91346645c2340a.
Hill et al. (2013). Hill, M., Kelly, G., Lockhart, G. and Van Ness, N.
ICAC (2010). Investigation into corruption risks involved in lobbying.
“Determinants and Effects of Corporate Lobbying”. 42.4,
November. Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
pp. 931–957. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1bf5/E6fdd5929e2fd7d
https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/docman/investigations/reports/3678-
61f13792c70deb5d3fbfd.Pdf.
investigation-into-corruption-risks-involved-in-lobbying-operation-
Hogan et al. (2011). Hogan, J., Murphy, G. and Chari, R. “Regulating The halifax/file.
Influence Game In Australia”. Australian Journal Of Politics And
(2016). Investigation Into Nsw Liberal Party Electoral Funding For The
History 57.1, pp. 102–113.
2011 State Election Campaign And Other Matters. Independent
Holmes, B. (2011). Citizens’ Engagement In Policymaking And The Design Of Commission Against Corruption.
Public Services. Research Paper No. 1 2011–12. Parliamentary https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/docman/investigations/reports/4869-
Library. operation-spicer-foreword-and-summary/file.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Department
Information And Privacy Commission NSW (2018). Charter For Public
s/Parliamentary_Library/%5C%20pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01?print=1.
Participation – A Guide To Assist Agencies And Promote Citizen
House of Representatives Standing Committee (2011). Draft Code of Conduct Engagement. June. NSW Information and Privacy Commission.
for Members of Parliament Discussion Paper. House of https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/charter-public-participation-guide-assist-
Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ agencies-and-promote-citizen-engagement.
Interests.
JERAA (2017). Submission to Senate Select Committee on the Future of
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House
Public Interest Journalism. Journalism Education & Research
_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/pmi/reports/FinalCoC.pdf.
Association of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busin
ess/Committees/Senate/Future_of_Public_Interest_Journalism/Publi
cInterestJournalism/Submissions.

Jewell, C. (2017). “Greens want donation reform after a look at minister’s La Pira, T. M. and Thomas, H. F. (2014). “Revolving door lobbyists and interest
diary”. The Fifth Estate. representation”. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3.1, pp. 4–29.
https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/business/government/greens-want- http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.16.
donation-reform-after-a-look-at-ministers-diary.
Lambie, J. (2017a). Cleaning Up Canberra. October. Jacqui Lambie Network,
Johns, G. (2000). “Party Democracy: An Audit Of Australian Parties”. pp. 1–18. https://www.lambienetwork.com.au/corruption.
Australian Journal Of Political Science 35.3, pp. 401–425.
(2017b). “Jacqui Lambie’s plan to fix the lobbying racket in Canberra”.
Joint Standing Committee On Electoral Matters (2011). Inquiry Into The Sydney Morning Herald.
Funding Of Political Parties And Election Campaigns. https: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/jacqui-lambies-plan-to-fix-the-
//www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_repr lobbying-racket-in-canberra-20171014-gz1006.html.
esentatives_committees?url=em/political%20funding/report.htm.
Lane, S. (2011). “Industry Launches Anti-Carbon Tax Campaign”. ABC News.
Keane, B. (2016). “Why we’re groping in the dark on political donations”. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-21/industry-group-steps-up-
Crikey. https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/02/02/why-were-groping-in- carbon-ads/2803794.
the-dark-on-political-donations/.
Latimer, C. (2014). Carbon Tax Repealed. Australian Mining.
Keane, S. (2017). Submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Future https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/carbon-tax-repealed-2/
of Public Interest Journalism. Michael West (michaelwest.com.au). (visited on 09/08/2018).
Le Grand, C. (2018). “Archbishops to question PM over future of Catholic
Future_of_Public_Interest_Journalism/PublicInterestJournalism/Su
charity”. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
bmissions.
affairs/archbishops-to-question-pm-over-future-of-catholic-
Keane, B. (2017). “Labor would love to dump the SDA and help workers, but charity/news-story/f5e7959833a70ae1cf4845186b2ba34d.
the money’s too good”. Crikey.
Legislative Assembly Of Queensland (2018). Code Of Ethical Standards.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/08/28/labor-would-love-to-dump-the-
Legislative Assembly Of Queensland. https://www.parliament.qld.gov
sda-and-help-workers-but-the-moneys-too-good/.
.au/documents/assembly/procedures/codeofethicalstandards.pdf.
Kimball et al. (2012). Kimball, D. C., Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M.,
Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow The Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’
Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L. and Summary, B. “Who Cares About The
Policies and Performance. University of Chicago Press.
Lobbying Agenda?” Interest Groups & Advocacy 1.1, pp. 5–25.
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/iga.2012.7. Lessig, L. (2013). “Foreword: “Institutional corruption” defined”. The Journal of
Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.3, pp. 553–555.
Knott, M. (2015). “The Pharmacy Guild: the most powerful lobby group you’ve
never heard of”. Sydney Morning Herald. https: Levy, R. (2018). “The ’Elite Problem’ In Deliberative Constitutionalism”. The
//www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-pharmacy-guild-the-most- Cambridge Handbook Of Deliberative Constitutionalism. Ed. by
powerful-lobby-group-youve-never-heard-of-20150401-1mckxl.html. R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr and J. King, pp. 351–369.
Komter, A. (2007). “Gifts And Social Relations: The Mechanisms Of Liebman, B. H. and Reynolds, K. M. (2006). “The Returns From Rent-Seeking:
Reciprocity”. International Sociology 22.1, pp. 93–77. Campaign Contributions, Firm Subsidies And The Byrd Amendment”.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0268580907070127. Canadian Journal Of Economics 39.4, pp. 1345–1369.

Lillywhite, S. (2018). Speech on a National Integrity Commission – Options for Lowy Institute (2018). Lowy Institute Poll – Climate Change And Energy. Lowy
Australia. Institute.
http://transparency.org.au/tia/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lillywhite- https://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/climate-change-and-energy/.
Speech_NIC-Options-for-Australia.pdf.
Lucas, C. (2017a). Expert Cut From Toll Road Project After Warning Tim
Lindsey, B. and Teles, S. (2017). The Captured Economy: How the powerful Pallas It Did Not Stack Up.
enrich themselves, slow down growth, and increase inequality. Oxford https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/expert-cut-from-toll-road-
University Press. project-after-warning-tim-pallas-it-did-not-stack-up-20170803-
gxoohi.html.
Livingstone, C. and Johnson, M. (2016). “Paying The Piper And Calling The
Tune? Following ClubsNSW’s Political Donations”. The Conversation. (2017b). West Gate Tunnel: Benefits Deliberately Distorted To
https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune- Support Road, Says Expert.
following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/west-gate-tunnel-
benefits-deliberately-distorted-to-support-road-says-expert-
(2017). Select Committee Into The Political Influence Of Donations:
20170813-gxv9gd.html.
Submission 18. Canberra.
Lucas, A. (2018). “Revealed: The Extent Of Job-Swapping Between Public
Loewenstein et al. (1989). Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L. and
Servants And Fossil Fuel Lobbyists”. The Conversation.
Bazerman, M. H. “Social Utility And Decision Making In Interpersonal
https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-extent-of-job-swapping-
Contexts.” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 57.3,
between-public-servants-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-88695.
pp. 426–441.
Lucas, A. and Holland, J. R. (2018). Revolving Doors: How The Fossil Fuel
Long, S. (2017a). “The Labor Insider Turned Adani Lobbyist Who Smoothed
Lobby Has Governments Ensnared.
The Way For The Mega Mine”. ABC News.
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/revolving-doors-how-the-fossil-fuel-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/the-labor-insider-who-
lobby-has-governments-ensnared/.
lobbied-for-adani/9181648.
Ludlow, M. (2017). “Annastacia Palaszczuk has no regrets about Adani veto”.
(2017b). “Pre-Election Coal Advertising Funded By Money Meant For
Australian Financial Review.
Clean Coal Research”. ABC News.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/palaszczuk-has-no-regrets-about-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-20/coal-advertising-funded-by-
lastminute-adani-veto-20171123-gzs0be.
money-meant-for-clean-coal-research/8287326.
(2018). “Transurban Says It Won’t Cut Road Tolls In Qld, As
Lopez, R. A. (2003). “Campaign Contributions And Agricultural Subsidies”.
Parliamentary Inquiry Looms”. Australian Financial Review.
Economics And Politics 13.3, pp. 257–279.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/transurban-facing-parliamentary-
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-0343.00093.
inquiry-into-toll-roads-in-queensland-20180613-h11d2o.
Loughnane, B. (2011). Kevin O’Lemon: Liberal Party Ad.
Ludlow, M. and Wiggins, J. (2018). “Unsolicited proposals could be worse for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf3KovsW1Zo.
taxpayers, ACCC warns”. Australian Financial Review.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/unsolicited-proposals-could-be-
worse-for-taxpayers-accc-warns-20180830-h14pw2.

Lusty, D. (2014). “Revival of The Common Law Offence of Misconduct in Martin, P. (2016). “Negative gearing. Confused by the economic modelling?
Public Office”. Criminal Law Journal 38, pp. 337–363. That’s the whole idea”. Sydney Morning Herald.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/negative-gearing-confused-by-the-
Lux et al. (2011). Lux, S., Crook, T. R. and Woehr, D. J. “Mixing Business With
economic-modelling-thats-the-whole-idea-20160304-gnab18.html.
Politics: A Meta-Analysis of The Antecedents and Outcomes of
Corporate Political Activity”. Journal of Management 37.1, Mather, J. and Coorey, P. (2018). “Labor open to stripping super from Fair
pp. 223–247. Work”. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/personal-
finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/labor-open-to-stripping-super-
Lynham, A. (2015). Galilee basin coal jobs come one step closer. The State of
from-fair-work-20180530-h10qg0.
Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2015/4/18/galilee-basin-coal- Mauro, P. (1995). “Corruption And Growth”. Quarterly Journal Of Economics
jobs-come-one-step-closer. 110.3, pp. 681–712. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946696%20http:
//www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.
Macnamara, J. (1993). “Public Relations & The Media: A New Influence In"
Agenda-Setting" And Content”. MCA (2017). MCA responses to questions from Senate Select Committee into
http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/du:30023323. the Political Influence of Donations. Minerals Council Australia.
(2002). The impact of PR on the media. Public Relations Institute of
Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations/Additional_Docu
Australia. http://www.pria.com.au/sitebuilder/resources/knowledge/fil
ments.
es/2140/primpactmedia.pdf.
McCarthy, J. (2017). “Adani will create more than 10,000 jobs. Here’s how”.
Maher, S. (2018). “$19bn hit in Labor negative gearing strike on investors:
The Courier Mail. https://www.qt.com.au/news/adani-will-create-
report”. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
more-than-10000-jobs-heres-how/3186206/.
affairs/treasury/19bn-hit-in-labor-negative-gearing-strike-on-
investors-report/news-story/71b662e838fe0e0588a452aae729d40f. McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. (1972). “The Agenda-Setting Function Of
Mass Media”. Public Opinion Quarterly 36.2, p. 176.
Malmendier, U. and Schmidt, K. (2017). “You Owe Me”. American Economic
https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/267990.
Review 107.2, pp. 493–526.
http://piotr-evdokimov.com/aer.20140890.pdf. McDermott et al. (2016). McDermott, Q., Denyer, W. and Mayeta, C. “Labor
senator Sam Dastyari calls for total ban on political donations”. ABC
Manning, P. (2014). “Martin Ferguson’s revolving door puts energy industry in
News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/senator-sam-dastyari-
a spin”. Crikey. https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/17/martin-
calls-for-ban-on-political-donations/8731048.
fergusons-revolving-door-puts-energy-industry-in-a-spin/.
McGhee, A. (2016). “Nearly $2m of political donations missing from AEC
Markham, F. and Young, M. (2015). “"Big Gambling": The Rise Of The Global
disclosures”. ABC News.
Industry-State Gambling Complex”. Addiction Research And Theory
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19//%7B%5C$%7D1.7m-of-
23.1, pp. 1–4.
political-donations-missing-from-party-disclosures/7178228.
Marsh, I. (1999). “Opening Up The Policy Process”. Ed. by M. Sawer and
S. Miskin. Papers on Parliament 34.

McGowan, M. (2018). “Bill Shorten Pledges Extra $250m For Catholic Schools (2016). “Conned or confused by economic modelling?” ABC TV.
If Labor Elected”. The Guardian. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/conned-or-confused-by-
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/09/bill- economic-modelling/9973034.
shorten-pledges-extra-250m-for-catholic-schools-if-labor-elected.
Medicines Australia (2018a). Our Role.
McGrath, C. (2006). “The Ideal Lobbyist: Personal Characteristics Of Effective https://medicinesaustralia.com.au/about-us/our-role/.
Lobbyists”. Journal Of Communication Management 10.1, pp. 67–79.
(2018b). Executive.
McKeown, D. (2014). “Who pays the piper? Rules for lobbying governments in https://medicinesaustralia.com.au/about-us/executive/.
Australia, Canada, UK and USA”. August, pp. 1–28. https:
Merritt, C. (2018). “Seriously Flawed Or Just Plain Silly, ICAC Idea Is A Gift
//www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parl
For Turnbull”. The Australian.
iamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/LobbyingRules#_Toc395015251.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/chris-merritt-
McKnight, D. and Hobbs, M. (2013). “Public Contest Through the Popular prejudice/seriously-flawed-or-just-plain-silly-icac-idea-is-a-gift-for-
Media: the Mining Industry’s Advertising War Against the Australian turnbull/news-story/0d86c25303192c5ffb75f4e5d044ce29.
Labor Government”. Australian Journal of Political Science 48.3,
Mialon et al. (2016). Mialon, M., Swinburn, B., Allender, S. and Sacks, G.
pp. 307–319.
“Systematic Examination Of Publicly Available Information Reveals
Mclnally, G. (2017). Response to the Committee’s Request for Information. The Diverse And Extensive Corporate Political Activity Of The Food
Nine Network. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Co Industry In Australia”. BMC Public Health 16.
mmittees/Senate/Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2955-7.
/Additional_Documents.
Millar, R. and Schneiders, B. (2015). “Why is the union that represents
McMenamin, I. (2013). If money talks, what does it say?: Corruption and supermarket workers stopping gay marriage?” Sydney Morning
business financing of political parties. Oxford: Oxford University Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-is-the-union-that-
Press. represents-supermarket-workers-stopping-gay-marriage-20150430-
1mwl32.html.
McPhedran, I. (2015). “Former Senior Defence Adviser Now Heading French
Sub Builder”. News.com.au. Minifie, J. (2015). “Super Governance Not The Biggest Issue”. Money
https://www.news.com.au/national/former-senior-defence-adviser- Management.
now-heading-french-sub-builder/news- https://grattan.edu.au/news/super-governance-not-the-biggest-issue/.
story/9afdad459b857261f019743a7cd1165e.
(2017). Competititon in Australia: Too little of a good thing? Report
MEAA (2018). Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance. Fair Go Fairfax. No. 2017-12. Grattan Institute.
https://www.meaa.org/campaigns/fair-go-fairfax/. https://grattan.edu.au/report/competition-in-the-australian-economy/.
Media Watch (2013). Disclosing the funding the think tanks. Ministerial and Parliamentary Services (2017). Guidelines on Overseas Visits
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/disclosing-the-funding- by Ministers.
of-think-tanks/9980716. https://maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/ministers-of-
state/Guidelines_on_Overseas_Visits_by_Ministers_-_Travel.

Miskin, S. and Grant, R. (2004). Political Advertising In Austrialia. K. M. Murphy et al. (1991). Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. “The
Parliamentary Library. Allocation Of Talent: Implications For Growth”. The Quarterly Journal
http://apo.org.au/system/files/504/apo-nid504-3676.pdf. Of Economics 106.2, pp. 503–530.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/2937945.
Mitchell, A. (2015). “Time to end outsourcing and rebuild the public service”.
Australian Financial Review. K. M. Murphy et al. (1993). Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. “Why Is
https://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/time-to-end-outsourcing-and- Rent-Seeking So Costly To Growth?” The American Economic
rebuild-the-public-service-20150612-ghmrje. Review 83.2, pp. 409–14.
Moran, T. (2017). Back in the game (Part 2). Murray, C. K. and Frijters, P. (2017). Game Of Mates: How Favours Bleed The
https://johnmenadue.com/terry-moran-back-in-the-game-part-2-of-2/. Nation. Cameron Murray and Paul Frijters.
Morrison, S. (2016). Doorstop interview, Canberra. National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign
http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/transcript/027-2016/. Interference) Bill 2018 (Cth). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_B
usiness/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6022.
(2017). Labor will drive up rents, pushing more Australians into rental
stress. http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/058-2017/. Nelson, T. E. and Garst, J. (2005). “Values-Based Political Messages And
Persuasion: Relationships Among Speaker, Recipient, And Evoked
Morton, A. (2018). “‘Dirty little secret’: is the pokies industry Australia’s version
Values”. Political Psychology 26.4, pp. 489–515.
of the NRA?” The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/14/dirty-little-
secret-is-the-pokies-industry-australias-version-of-the-nra. Ng, Y.-F. (2016). “Will Heads Roll? Ministerial Standards And Stuart Robert”.
The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/will-heads-roll-
Muller, D. (2017a). Election Funding and Disclosure in Australia: a Quick
ministerial-standards-and-stuart-robert-54479.
Guide to Recent Reforms and Current Issues – Parliament of
Australia. Parliamentary Library Australia. https: Nicholls, S. (2012). “How Casino Dodged Tender Trap”. Sydney Morning
//www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parl Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-casino-dodged-
iamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/ElectionFunding. tender-trap-20121031-28kib.html.
(2017b). Election funding and disclosure in Australian states and Nicholls, S. and Feneley, R. (2012). “The Packer dynasty’s long game”.
territories: a quick guide – Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-
Library Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliame packer-dynastys-long-game-20121026-28ay0.html.
ntary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Gu
Nisbet, M. C. and Huge, M. (2006). “Attention Cycles And Frames In The Plant
ides/ElectionFundingStates.
Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power Participation Through The
Murphy, J. (2018). “Are the Liberals too big to fail?” Inside Story. Press/Policy Connection”. Harvard International Journal Of
http://insidestory.org.au/are-the-liberals-too-big-to-fail/. Press/Politics 11.2, pp. 3–40.

Norington, B. (2018). “GetUp! accused of working ‘in concert’ with Labor for OECD (2013). OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying.
2016 poll”. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
affairs/getup-accused-of-working-in-concert-with-labor-for-2016- http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/oecdprinciplesfortransparencyandinte
poll/news-story/b2c33166f94608be6a49247d3210594a. grityinlobbying.htm.
NSW Department of Industry (2018). Greyhound racing. (2014). Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust, Volume 3:
https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/about/our- Implementing The OECD Principles For Transparency and Integrity in
business/department/racing/greyhound-racing. Lobbying. OECD Publishing.
http://www.oecd-Ilibrary.org/Governance/Lobbyists-Governments-
NSW Electoral Commission (2017a). Donations Caps. http://www.elections.ns
And-Public-Trust-Volume-2_9789264084940-En.
w.gov.au/fd/political_donations/caps_on_political_donations.
(2016). Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and
(2017b). Political Donations: What is a political donation? NSW
Election Campaigns and The Risk of Policy Capture. Paris: OECD
Electoral Commission.
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing.
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/fd/political_donations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264249455-En.
(2017c). Caps on Electoral Expenditure. http://www.elections.nsw.go
(2017). Preventing Policy Capture. Paris: OECD Public Governance
v.au/fd/electoral_expenditure/caps_on_electoral_expenditure.
Reviews, OECD Publishing.
NSW Government (2013). Crown proposal moves to stage 3.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory
https://www.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/news/crown-proposal-
of Groups. Harvard University Press.
moves-to-stage-3/.
Opray, M. (2018). “South Australia’s pokies lobby takes a bet each way to stop
(2018). Ministers’ Diary Disclosures.
Nick Xenophon”. The Guardian. https:
https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/publications/ministers-diary-disclosures/
//www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/05/south-australia-
(visited on 15/04/2018).
election-pokies-lobby-takes-a-bet-each-way-to-stop-nick-xenophon.
NSWEC (2015). Party subscriptions and membership fees.
Orr, G. and Gauja, A. (2014). “Third-Party Campaigning and Issue-Advertising
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/fd/donors/political_donor/political_d
in Australia”. Australian Journal of Politics & History 60.1, pp. 73–92.
onations/party_subscriptions_and_membership_fees.
OSCE (2018). ODIHR election reports. https:
(2016). Fact Sheet: Electoral Funding Act 2018. Electoral
//www.osce.org/resources/documents?filters=+im_taxonomy_vid_1:
Commission NSW. http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf
(24)+im_taxonomy_vid_3:(120).
_file/0010/263296/Fact_Sheet_-_Electoral_funding_Act_2018.pdf.
Panichi, J. (2013). “The Lobby Group That Got More Bang For Its Buck”.
(2017). View Disclosures, 2016-17.
Inside Story July. http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/fd/disclosure/view_disclosures
much-more-bang-for-its-buck/.
(visited on 15/04/2018).
Parliament of Australia (2018). Parliamentary Privilege.
(2018). Registration. Election Commission NSW.
https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/work_of_the_parliament/p
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/fd/registration.
arliament_at_work/parliamentary_privilege.

Pascoe, M. (2016). “Labor and coalition agree to keep tax lurk”. Sydney Pedersen et al. (2013). Pedersen, H. H., Halpin, D. and Rasmussen, A. “Who
Morning Herald. Gives Evidence To Parliamentary Committees ?” Paper Prepared For
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/labor-and-coalition- Presentation At The General Conference Of The European
agree-to-keep-tax-lurk-20160920-grjzsp.html. Consortium For Political Research In Bordeaux, 5-7 September,
2013.
Patel, U. (2016). “Sam Dastyari Steps Down From Labor Frontbench After
Accepting Money From Chinese Donors”. ABC News. Pender, H. (2016). Corporate Political Expenditure In Australia. June.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/sam-dastyari-steps-down- Canberra: Australasian Centre For Corporate Responsibility.
from-labors-front-bench/7823970. http://www.accr.org.au/politics.
Patrick, A. (2016). “James Packer, Lendlease Used Lure Of Jobs, Taxes To Perpitch, N. and Taylor, P. (2013). “McGowan puts unions on notice”. The
Overrule Planning Laws”. Australian Financial Review. Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/james-packer-lendlease- politics/mcgowan-puts-unions-on-notice/news-story/111d91fdb6b
used-lure-of-jobs-taxes-to-overrule-planning-laws-20161206-gt4ws6. 8368d23b8ecad7f4df95e?sv=527912af8d521e8966ddaf3e0781ee83.
PBS Information Management Section (2017). PBS Expenditure And Petty et al. (1983). Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. and Schumann, D. “Central
Prescriptions Twelve Months To 30 June 2017. Department Of Health. And Peripheral Routes To Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating
http://www.pbs.gov.au/statistics/expenditure-prescriptions/2016- Role Of Involvement”. Journal Of Consumer Research 10.2,
2017/expenditure-and-prescriptions-twelve-months-to-30-june- pp. 135–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488919?seq=1%7B%5C
2017.pdf. #%7Dpage_scan_tab_contents.
PC (2010). Gambling Inquiry. Productivity Commission. Pezzey et al. (2010). Pezzey, J. C., Mazouz, S. and Jotzo, F. “The Logic Of
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report. Collective Action And Australia’s Climate Policy”. Australian Journal
Of Agricultural And Resource Economics 54.2, pp. 185–202.
(2014). A quick guide to the Productivity Commission. Productivity
Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/about/glance/quick- PM&C (2014). The Australian Government Guide To Regulation. Department
guide/productivity-commission-quickguide-2014.pdf. Of The Prime Minister and Cabinet.
https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/australian-
(2015). Efficiency In Health: Productivity Commission Research
government-guide-regulation.
Paper. Productivity Commission.
https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/efficiency- (2016). Best Practice Consultation. Guidance Note. Department Of
health/efficiency-health.pdf. The Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office Of Best Practice Regulation,
pp. 1–11. https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/best-
(2018). Superannuation: Assessing Efficiency and Competitiveness
practice-consultation.pdf.
(Draft report). Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/__data
/assets/pdf_file/0003/228171/superannuation-assessment-draft.pdf. (2018a). Australian Government Register Of Lobbyists.
https://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/.
Pearson, B. (2014). Carbon Tax Repeal Will Promote Jobs And Investment
Growth. Minerals Council Of Australia. http://www.minerals.org.au/ne (2018b). Lobbyist Profile: Govstrat Pty Ltd.
ws/carbon_tax_repeal_will_promote_jobs_and_investment_growth https://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/register/view_agency.cfm?id=125.
(visited on 24/06/2018).

Potter, B. (2016). “ACCC’s Rod Sims ’Exasparated’ As Privatisations ’Increase Rauch, J. (2016). “How American Politics Became So Ineffective”. The Atlantic
Prices’”. Australian Financial Review. July. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-
https://www.afr.com/news/economy/acccs-rod-sims-exasparated-as- american-politics-went-insane/485570/.
privatisations-increase-prices-20160726-gqdyjv.
Reece, N. (2015a). “How Australia’s Cartel-Like Political Parties Drag Down
Powell, L. W. (2012). The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Democracy”. Sydney Morning Herald.
Legislatures: The Effects of Institutions and Politics. Ann Arbor: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cartellike-political-parties-resist-
University of Michigan Press. change-20150809-giuywk.html.
QGSO (2017). Australian Gambling Statistics: 1990-91 to 2015-16. 33. (2015b). “Experiment Pays Off: Melbourne People’s Panel Produces
Queensland Government Statisticians Office. Quality Policy”. Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/aus- https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/experiment-pays-off-melbourne-
gambling-stats-33rd-edn.pdf. peoples-panel-produces-robust-policy-20150628-ghzoz4.html.
QIC (2018). Register of lobbying contacts. (2016). “Why Scare Campaigns Like ‘Mediscare’ Work – Even If
https://www.integrity.qld.gov.au/lobbyists/register-of-lobbying- Voters Hate Them”. Jul. https://theconversation.com/why-scare-
contacts.aspx. campaigns-like-mediscare-work-even-if-voters-hate-them-62279.
QLD Electoral Commission (2017). Disclosure Returns. Registrar of Members’ Interests (2018). Register of Members’ Interests – 45th
https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/candidates-and-parties/funding-and- Parliament – Parliament of Australia.
disclosure/disclosure-returns. https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Register
(visited on 31/07/2018).
Queensland Electoral Commission (2018). Funding and Disclosure Handbook.
Queensland Electoral Commission. Robertson, J. (2015). “Adani coalmine would not deliver jobs and royalties
https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/76657/State- promised, land court hears”. The Guardian. https:
Handbook-Funding-and-Disclosure-Manual-August-2018.pdf. //www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/adani-coalmine-
would-not-deliver-jobs-and-royalties-promised-land-court-hears.
Queensland Government (2016). “Ministerial Code Of Conduct”. Department
Of The Premier And Cabinet. (2017). “Queensland Labor strategist announces he will stop lobbying
https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and- for Adani”. The Guardian.
codes/handbooks/ministerial-handbook/appendices/appendix-1.aspx. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/16/queensland-
labor-strategist-announces-he-will-stop-lobbying-for-adani.
(2018). Ministerial diaries.
https://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers/diaries.aspx (visited on Saulwick, J. (2013). “Packer on a good thing: roll your own tax rate”. Sydney
15/04/2018). Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/business/packer-on-a-
good-thing-roll-your-own-tax-rate-20130705-2phha.html.
Raper, A. and Glanville, B. (2016). “James Packer’s Sydney Casino And Hotel
Approved For Barangaroo”. ABC News. Savage, G. (2018). “Why Is The Funding Of Catholic Schools So
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-28/pac-approval-of-barangaroo- Controversial?” ABC Opinion. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-
crown-casino-development/7549732. 27/why-is-the-funding-of-catholic-schools-so-controversial/9586148.

Schlozman et al. (2012). Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S. and Brady, H. E. The Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees (2016).
Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice And The Broken Promise Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of
Of American Democracy. Princeton University Press, p. 693. associated entities of political parties: final report. https:
//www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Fina
Schneiders, B. and Millar, R. (2016a). “Toll Giant Transurban Wants to Charge
nce_and_Public_Administration/legislative_provisions/Final_Report.
for all Roads”. Sydney Morning Herald.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/toll-giant-transurban-wants-to- Senate Select Committee (2017). Select Committee on the National Integrity
charge-for-all-roads-20160513-goup2i.html. Commission: Report.
https://www.aph.gov.au/select_integritycommission.
(2016b). “Citylink Users To Be Slugged Tens Of Billions Under
Andrews Government Plan”. The Age. https: Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests (2018). Current Register.
//www.theage.com.au/business/citylink-users-to-be-slugged-tens-of- https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
billions-under-andrews-government-plan-20160205-gmmahg.html. Senators_Interests/CurrentRegister (visited on 31/07/2018).
Schott et al. (2014). Schott, K., Tink, A. and Watkins, J. Political Donations – Shanahan, D. (2011). Miner Pushes Taxation ‘Fairness’.
Final Report. 1, p. 155. https://global-factiva-com.virtual.anu.edu.au/redir/default.aspx?p=sa
https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/announcements/panel_of_experts_- %7B%5C&%7Dan=austln0020111012e7ad0008e%7B%5C&%7Dca
_political_donations. t=a%7B%5C&%7Dep=ase.
Schwartz, B. (1967). “The Social Psychology Of The Gift”. American Journal Sheila McKechnie Foundation (2018). The Chilling Reality: How the Lobbying
Of Sociology 73, pp. 1–11. Act is affecting charity & voluntary sector campaigning in the UK.
https://www-jstor-org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/stable/2776124. Sheila McKechnie Foundation. http://smk.org.uk/the-lobbying-act/.
Schweizer et al. (2014). Schweizer, C., Puppis, M., Künzler, M. and Studer, S. Sherry, N. (2018). LinkedIn profile.
Public Funding of Private Media. London School of Economics. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-sherry-38449b74/.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/.
Sims, R. (2016). Getting Privatisation Right. http://www.cis.org.au/events/rod-
Seccombe, M. (2018). “Rinehart’s secret millions to the IPA”. The Saturday sims-on-the-barbed-topic-of-getting-privatisation-right/.
Paper. https:
Smith, J. (2015). “Passion Or Dollars? How Mobilization Can Spoil The
//www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2018/07/28/rineharts-
Mother’s Milk Of Politics”. Political Research Quarterly 68.2,
secret-millions-the-ipa/15327000006616.
pp. 253–265. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24371830.
Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations (2018). Political
Special Minister Of State (2018). Statement Of Standards For Ministerial Staff.
Influence of Donations. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/
https://www.smos.gov.au/resources/statement-of-standards.html.
committees/reportsen/024147/toc_pdf/PoliticalInfluenceofDonations.
pdf;fileType=application%7B%5C%%7D2Fpdf. Statement by Chairperson, NSW Electoral Commission (2016). http:
//www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/224363/22_
Senate Committee (2012). Senate Code Of Conduct Inquiry. Senate Standing
September_2016_-_Liberal_Party_of_Australia_NSW_Division.pdf.
Committee of Senators’ Interests.
https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/
senators_interests/reports/022012/c01.

Steel, S. (2010). RSPT Polling And Low Hanging Fruit. (2012). “Establishing a Sustainable Framework for Election Funding
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/06/02/rspt-polling-and-low- and Spending Laws in New South Wales: A Report Prepared for the
hanging-fruit/. New South Wales Electoral Commission”.
https://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/commissioned
Steketee, M. (2017). “Why we need full public funding of election campaigns”.
_reports/20121113_Joo-Cheong_Tham_-
Inside Story. https://insidestory.org.au/why-we-need-full-public-
_Establishing_A_Sustainable_Framework_for_Election_Funding_and
funding-of-election-campaigns/.
_Spending_Laws_in_New_South_Wales_final_report.pdf.
Sultan, N. M. (2017). “Election 2016: Trump’s free media helped keep cost
Tham, J.-C. and Anderson, M. (2016). “Taking Xenophobia Out Of The
down, but fewer donors provided more of the cash”. Open Secrets.
Political Donation Debate”. Inside Story.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-
http://insidestory.org.au/taking-xenophobia-out-of-the-political-
fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/.
donation-debate/.
Summers, W. (2018). “The bizarre reason Parliament House won’t tell us who
The Economist (2017). “Australians spend more on gambling than people
has a security pass”. Crikey.
anywhere else”. The Economist.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/06/18/parliament-house-lobbyist-list-
https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/03/16/australians-spend-more-
security/.
on-gambling-than-people-anywhere-else.
Sweeney, L. (2017). “Sam Dastyari resigns, says he does not want to ‘detract
The Electoral Commission (UK) (2018). Donations and loans reported every
from Labor’s mission’”. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-
quarter by political parties.
12-12/sam-dastyari-resigns-from-parliament/9247390.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-
Talberg et al. (2016). Talberg, A., Hui, S. and Loynes, K. “Australian climate subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-
change policy : a chronology”. Parliamentary Library 8, p. 21. loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/2875065/
The World Bank (2018). DataBank.
upload_binary/2875065.pdf;fileType=application/pdf.
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx.
Taliento, L. and Madgavkar, A. (2016). “Power with purpose: How women’s
Thomas, C. S. (1998). “Interest Group Regulation Across The United States:
leadership boosts the economy and society”. Devex. https:
Rationale, Development And Consequences”. Parliamentary Affairs
//www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/power-with-purpose.
51.4, pp. 500–515.
Teles, S. (2013). “Kludgeocracy In America”. National Affairs 36.
Thomas, M. (2016). Gambling: a reprise for reform? Parliamentary Library
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/kludgeocracy-in-
Briefing Book – 45th Parliament.
america.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Department
Tham, J.-C. (2010). Money and politics: the democracy we can’t afford. s/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/Gambling.
Sydney, N.S.W: University of New South Wales Press Pty Ltd.
Transparency International (2018). Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 survey
results. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perce
ptions_index_2017.

Transparency International Australia (2017). Corruption Risks: Mining (2018b). Public funding for parties.
Approvals in Australia. https://transparency.org.au/tia/wp- https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-
content/uploads/2017/09/M4SD-Australia-Report_Final_Web.pdf. subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/public-funding-
for-parties.
(2018). Rising Corruption Concern Drives Support For Federal
Integrity Body: Global Corruption Barometer Survey Results. (2018c). Guidance on reporting donations and loans.
https://transparency.org.au/media-release-gcb-survey-2018/. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-
campaigner/guidance-for-political-parties/reporting-donations-and-
Tullock et al. (2002). Tullock, G., Seldon, A. and Brady, G. Government Failure:
loans.
A Primer in Public Choice. Cato Institute.
Van der Graaf et al. (2016). Van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S. and Rasmussen, A.
Twomey, A. (2014). Working Paper 5 – Reconsidering The Reform Of Political
“Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest
Donations , Expenditure And Funding In New South Wales.
groups”. European Journal of Communication 31.2, pp. 120–135.
September. https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/assets/media-
news/95/attachments/61c4469312/working_paper_5_- Van Onselen, L. (2014). “Why the public service has become impotent”.
_professor_twomey_-_political_donations_revisited_2014.pdf. Macrobusiness. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/08/why-
the-public-service-has-become-impotent/.
(2015). Report Of Proceedings Before Joint Standing Committee On
Electoral Matters Inquiry Into The Final Report Of The Expert Panel Vromen, A. (2016). “New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians’
— Political Donations And The Government ’ S Response. voices into politics”. The Conversation.
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/dbassets/inquiryevent https://theconversation.com/new-style-lobbying-how-getup-channels-
transcript/transcript/8800/transcript--public%20hearing%20no.1-- australians-voices-into-politics-60625.
30%20october%202015.pdf.
Walker, T. (2017). “Dastyari saga shows the need for donations reform, and for
(2018). “Federal Government’s Foreign Donations Bill Is Flawed And politicians to take more care”. The Conversation.
Needs To Be Redrafted”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/dastyari-saga-shows-the-need-for-
https://theconversation.com/federal-governments-foreign-donations- donations-reform-and-for-politicians-to-take-more-care-88382.
bill-is-flawed-and-needs-to-be-redrafted-92586.
Waller, D. (2016). “‘Mediscare’ Campaign Shows The Power Of Negative
Uhlmann, C. and Greene, A. (2017). “Chinese donors to Australian political Advertising”. The Conversation.
parties: who gave how much?” ABC News. https://theconversation.com/mediscare-campaign-shows-the-power-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-21/china-australia-political- of-negative-advertising-61990.
donations/7766654.
Ward, I. (2009). “Lobbying As A Public Affair: Pr And Politics In Australia”.
UK Advertising Standards Authority (2014). Political advertising. Anzca09 Communication, Creativity And Global Citizenship July,
https://www.asa.org.uk/news/political-advertising.html. pp. 1039–1056.
UK Electoral Commission (2018a). Political party spending at elections.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-
subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-
spending-at-elections.

Webster, L. and Zonca, C. (2016). “Nationals’ Leader Barnaby Joyce Rules Wood, T. and Edis, T. (2011). New protectionism under carbon pricing: case
Out Support For Sugar Tax While Visiting North Queensland Cane studies of LNG, coal mining and steel sectors. Report No. 2011-6.
Heartland”. ABC News. Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/report/new-protectionism-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-09-22/nationals-leader- under-carbon-pricing/.
barnaby-joyce-rules-out-support-for-sugar-tax/7867538.
D. Wood et al. (2018). Wood, D., Daley, J. and Chivers, C. A crisis of trust: The
West, M. (2017a). Corporate lobbying a billion dollar business. rise of protest politics in Australia. Report No. 2018-05. Grattan
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/corporate-lobbying-a-billion-dollar- Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-crisis-of-trust/.
business/.
Yanovitzky, I. (2002). “Effects Of News Coverage On Policy Attention And
(2017b). “Why are we still pursuing the Adani Carmichael mine?” The Actions: A Closer Look Into The Media-Policy Connection”.
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-still-pursuing- Communication 29.4, pp. 422–451.
the-adani-carmichael-mine-85100.
Yaxley, L. (2017). “Foreign Minister denies knowledge of Chinese donor’s
Wheeler, C. (2006). The public interest: we know it’s important but do we know ’Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation’”. ABC News.
what it means. Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum No. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/julie-bishop-questioned-
48. http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2006/2.pdf. over-chinese-donors-foundation/8618288.
WHO (2015). Fiscal Policies For Diet And The Prevention Of Young, S. (2002). “Spot On: The Role Of Political Advertising In Australia”.
Noncommunicable Diseases. May. World Health Organisation. Political Studies 37.791963552, pp. 81–97. https://www.tandfonline.co
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal-policies-diet- m/doi/abs/10.1080/13603100220119038?journalcode=cajp20.
prevention/en/.
Zawawi, C. (1994). “Sources Of News–Who Feeds The Watchdogs?”
Willingham, R. (2015). “Sunday explainer: the factions running the ALP”. The Australian Journalism Review 16.1, pp. 67–71.
Age. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/sunday-explainer-
Zingales, L. (2017). “Towards A Political Theory Of The Firm”. NBER 23593.
the-factions-running-the-alp-20150619-ghryk0.html.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23593.pdf.
(2018). “Political Donation Laws Overhaul In Victoria May Not Pass
Zullo, R. (2006). “Public-Private Contracting and Political Reciprocity”. Political
After Opposition Reverses Support”. ABC News.
Research Quarterly 59.2, pp. 273–281.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/coalition-rejects-victorian-
political-donation-laws-overhaul/9885544.
Witko, C. (2011). “Campaign Contributions, Access, And Government
Contracting”. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory
21.4, pp. 761–778.
Wood, T. (2017). “A Workable Roadmap For Australia’s Climate Change
Policies – Grattan Institute Submission To The Review Of Climate
Change Policies”.
https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/934-post-paris-
australia-climate-policy-options.pdf.

908 Who S in The Room Access and Influence in Australian Politics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

908 Who S in The Room Access and Influence in Australian Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sept

Grattan Institute 2018 2

Grattan Institute 2018 3

Grattan Institute 2018 4

1 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 The access problem in Australian politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 The money problem in Australian politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4 Winning hearts and minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5 Proposals for reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

A Case studies of special interest influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Grattan Institute 2018 5

1 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture

Grattan Institute 2018 6

Grattan Institute 2018 7

Grattan Institute 2018 8

Grattan Institute 2018 9

Grattan Institute 2018 10

1.3 Australia is vulnerable to policy capture

Grattan Institute 2018 11

Ability to influence policy Opportunity to influence policy

Grattan Institute 2018 12

Grattan Institute 2018 13

Grattan Institute 2018 14

But policy making can be distorted if some interests are consistently

The remainder of this report tracks the ‘tools of influence’: political

The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 shows how some special interests invest much more in

Chapter 3 examines the role of political donations in building

Chapter 4 looks at public campaigns on policy and how misinformation,

Chapter 5 recommends reforms to make policy making more

Grattan Institute 2018 15

2 The access problem in Australian politics

Lobbying plays an important role in policy development: it may help

Grattan Institute 2018 16

Figure 2.1: Commercial lobbyists typically represent companies in highly

Establishing a party is an open way to seek influence. But, as

Grattan Institute 2018 17

Grattan Institute 2018 18

Highly motivated and well-resourced interests have greater capacity to

Grattan Institute 2018 19

Hiring or employing people with the right connections is another way to

Grattan Institute 2018 20

Box 2: What would balance look like?

Grattan Institute 2018 21

While ministers are more likely to go from politics to lucrative lobbying

72. Grattan analysis of Queensland’s register of lobbying contacts (QIC (2018)).

Grattan Institute 2018 22

Grattan Institute 2018 23

Sponsored hospitality is another way well-resourced interests can get Consulting

and less time-constrained setting to build relationships. Key gov’t

of federal ministers and shadow ministers have declared corporate- Other

gifts and benefits can make favoured treatment more likely.80

77. Clarence (2018).

Grattan Institute 2018 24

Grattan Institute 2018 25

Grattan Institute 2018 26

Grattan Institute 2018 27

106. OECD (2014).

Grattan Institute 2018 28

Grattan Institute 2018 29

Grattan Institute 2018 30

3 The money problem in Australian politics

Grattan Institute 2018 31